This is what I was tweeting about before. Progressives are congenitally incapable of imagining a world that isn't current-year America. (even non-American progressives, hence hilarious spectacle of things like Hong "reddit" Kong using Hollywood posters to protest the Chinese)
"Another world is possible," they exclaim, but they never seem to be able to actually imagine one.
For real, I was watching and think "okay, so the judge (Liet Kynes) and herald of the change are both played by blaqs. Maybe that ethnicity is one that's used in-universe as the Emperor's direct servants?" and then Jamis is black for no reason lol
Glorantha really has ruined speculative fiction for me.
Ultimately, libs live in a kind of crypto-econometric world where everyone is always making the best possible rational and moral choices given their circumstances and the only way to change actions is to change said circumstances.
This is why they hate "racists," "homophones," etc.: living refutations of their panglossian positivism.
Note how "blaming him," according to these people, never involves punishing said capitalist for being an accessory to to the violation of immigration laws. (this would be "fascism")
One of the most insidious faults encouraged by modern education is the tendency to immediately dismiss the points of authors whose train of logic isn't apparent to the reader.
1/?
We assume that "oh, he was just a diversity hire/old racist/etc." and therefore that there was no train of logic to begin with. It's transparent propaganda and, deep in the Republican party headquarters or the SPLC, that those people would freely admit that they're grifters. 2/?
Not without reason because there are, of course, a few people like Chris Rufo or Arthur Chu who openly admit they have no principles but winning. But their admission demonstrates uncommon stupidity on itself. Most genuine idiots (e.g
John Rawls) honestly believe. 3/?
Bad frame; you're conceding that education is important. The correct frame is "we've seen how many teachers fuck their students and kids in coal mines is provably less exploitative."
But seriously, legalizing child labour in this case = legalizing children working outside the home, which would become as de facto mandatory as women working outside the home and for the same reasons. Women/children's employment should be limited to the household and/or nepotism.
It's telling that all the examples that the Libertarian party retweets are things like kids who got paid five bucks a pop to wash their neighborhood cars. Self-employment is not what child labour would mean in a post-industrial age and they're being disingenuous.