Greta Thunberg is on the autistic spectrum. It is well known that Asperger's people often cause distress by calling a spade a spade. That's what makes her such a powerful advocate for climate change mitigation. She has no fear in calling out the rich, famous and powerful for their hypocrisy. Criticizing her for using an overly forthright descriptor of Mr Tate's behaviour (as opposed to his physical attributes) is shaming her for her condition. I believe we need to be more tolerant, not more 'woke'. Tate is the provocateur in this incident, and from his own self-aggrandizing advertising schtick, it's clear he has a few too many tickets on himself - a 'successful' businessman like Donald Trump, that is, he has shamelessly used others to make profits for himself, but demonstrates absolutely zero loyalty to those he has manipulated with his small dick energy.
It seems to me that body-shaming is immoral from a deontological perspective, so it's always a wrong thing to do, but the immorality of that piece compared to all of the rest of the situation means that the action overall is still moral. I would even say that it's more moral thanks to the body-shaming, since it's also good to make good jokes against people like Tate.
Why say it's a good thing? I think there were many better ways to handle that exchange. Even interacting with people and arguments that don't merit a response devalues a person in terms of intellectual respectability. And I definitely disagree with you that it's a good thing -- especially when a potential consequence is further normalizing anti-intellectualism and petty rage in discourse.
Greta Thunberg is on the autistic spectrum. It is well known that Asperger's people often cause distress by calling a spade a spade. That's what makes her such a powerful advocate for climate change mitigation. She has no fear in calling out the rich, famous and powerful for their hypocrisy. Criticizing her for using an overly forthright descriptor of Mr Tate's behaviour (as opposed to his physical attributes) is shaming her for her condition. I believe we need to be more tolerant, not more 'woke'. Tate is the provocateur in this incident, and from his own self-aggrandizing advertising schtick, it's clear he has a few too many tickets on himself - a 'successful' businessman like Donald Trump, that is, he has shamelessly used others to make profits for himself, but demonstrates absolutely zero loyalty to those he has manipulated with his small dick energy.
It seems to me that body-shaming is immoral from a deontological perspective, so it's always a wrong thing to do, but the immorality of that piece compared to all of the rest of the situation means that the action overall is still moral. I would even say that it's more moral thanks to the body-shaming, since it's also good to make good jokes against people like Tate.
To be fair, with all the 'roids Tate has taken, he probably needs tweezers and a magnifying glass to interfere with himself.
Why say it's a good thing? I think there were many better ways to handle that exchange. Even interacting with people and arguments that don't merit a response devalues a person in terms of intellectual respectability. And I definitely disagree with you that it's a good thing -- especially when a potential consequence is further normalizing anti-intellectualism and petty rage in discourse.
Oh, come on. It was hilarious.