• tuckerm@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Honestly, those two points don’t seem incompatible to me. For example:

    Teaching the history of fashion to undergrads in 1985 is bizarre because:

    1. They insist that standards of dress are entirely relative. Being dressed decently is a cultural construct; some cultures wear hardly any clothing whatsoever and being nude is a completely normal, default way of presenting yourself.
    2. And yet when I walk into class with my dick and balls hanging out, they all get extremely offended and the coeds threaten to call the police.

    (And yes I changed the year because I’m sick of so many of these issues being brought up as though “the kids these days” are the problem, when so often these are issues that have been around LITERALLY FOREVER.)

    I’m not trying to dunk on this Henry Shelvin guy – I’m certain that he knows a lot more about philosophy than me, and has more interesting thoughts about morals than I do. And I’m also not going to judge someone based on a tweet…aside from the obvious judgement that they are using Twitter, lol. But as far as takes go, this one kinda sucks.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      No, that is not the direct equivalence. The direct equivalence for 2. Would be something like

      “But then they insist that being naked is never acceptable and is grotesque, and anyone that disagrees is a gross pervert”

      That’s where the inconsistency comes from

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      And yet when I walk into class with my dick and balls hanging out, they all get extremely offended and the coeds threaten to call the police.

      Cancel culture today is out of control.