Context is paramount. In this context, the supplier is the oppressor. If the supplier is not an oppressor, that’s out of scope.
(edit) btw, endorsing oppression and supporting oppression are not the same thing. I said Doctorow /supports/ oppression with his stance, not that he endorses it. He clearly does not endorse it, but his approach does not do justice to his intent.
No, that difference between those words is important. My stance is in fact that Doctorow does not endorse oppression but he supports it through his actions and advocacy – unintentionally of course.
Only if you don’t know the nuanced difference between “endorsement” and “supports” will you fail to take it seriously. Endorsement deals with deontology (intent) whereas support is utilitarian in meaning.
Not at all. If you feed the oppressor, you support it. It’s a perverse stretch to claim the contrary – and it renders the word support meaningless. You cannot feed an oppressor (or promote someone else feeding an oppressor) and simultaneously claim to not support it. Vegans understand the concept well, and their movement reflects it.
being ok with patronization is not the same as endorsing oppression. that’s the lep you’re making
Context is paramount. In this context, the supplier is the oppressor. If the supplier is not an oppressor, that’s out of scope.
(edit) btw, endorsing oppression and supporting oppression are not the same thing. I said Doctorow /supports/ oppression with his stance, not that he endorses it. He clearly does not endorse it, but his approach does not do justice to his intent.
this is a semantic game
No, that difference between those words is important. My stance is in fact that Doctorow does not endorse oppression but he supports it through his actions and advocacy – unintentionally of course.
you’re stretching the definition of support to meaninglessness.
this is so self contradictory no one should take it seriously
Only if you don’t know the nuanced difference between “endorsement” and “supports” will you fail to take it seriously. Endorsement deals with deontology (intent) whereas support is utilitarian in meaning.
he’s not endorsing oppression, and saying he is simply is a lie.
You’ll have to quote where I said he was “endorsing” oppression.
Exactly. “Support”, not “endorse”.
youre stretching the definition of “support” to meaninglessness, and playing a semantic game.
Not at all. If you feed the oppressor, you support it. It’s a perverse stretch to claim the contrary – and it renders the word support meaningless. You cannot feed an oppressor (or promote someone else feeding an oppressor) and simultaneously claim to not support it. Vegans understand the concept well, and their movement reflects it.
anyone who says “Cory doctorow supports oppressors and tells others to do the same” is lying.