No. You have been making statements with implications on a player's character. Implying that they 'don't care', that they 'ragequitted' because they didn't want to lose in a debate, rather than because the format of the debate was unhealthy, that's a judgement on their character.
ROTP has been particularly vocal in making sure that Yuno's perspective of chapter 604 was taken into account. Explicitly on an emotional level, too. Now -without debating about the adoption issue - I would tentatively agree (for I haven't researched this issue) that few players have been vocally indignant to the treatment of new adoptees. ROTP is no more at fault - if fault there is - than me and others.
I don't need citations, just a logical argument. If you wish to include statistics you use in your work, that's great - I believe in your professional integrity not to falsify them to win an argument over this. If that's too much work, then perhaps GPT-4 could make a fair summary under your supervision?
I may be dumb, but I don't even know what it means to use power 'wisely'. As far as I know, this moral question has been debated for thousands of years and we still haven't reached an answer that satisfies most philosophers.
1. 'Don't care' is not a character-affecting statement; it's an interpretation of their motivations. You can 'care' or 'not care' about a thing without it being a mark against your moral fibre for crying out loud. This isn't difficult to understand.
2. So - a character in the 'core' group got empathy and consideration for their beliefs, but one outside the in-group
didn't, instead relegated to 'hypocritical' and not worth consideration? This is not the argument you think it is, it's just a description of a common faulty human cognitive heuristic for prioritizing shit.
3. Define what you mean by logic here; the very word is loaded within 'rational' spaces, and without definition in argument can be impossible to satisfy. Do you mean simply 'A is followed by B, etc' or do you require positivism-based meaningless emotion-stripped 'logic' like many self-proclaimed 'rationalists' I've had the misfortune of encountering in the past?
If it's simple then to put it quite simply: Hazou is the head of a clan. A clan is
not run like a corporation, a cult or a ideological party. Joining
does not mean that the entirety of one's being is subsumed to the greater will and purpose of the leader. It is the opposite; Hazou has an implicit responsibility to the wellbeing of members, including their integration into and identification with the clan. To effectively carry out this purpose, Hazou must consider things from the perspectives of members.
To cast aside this perspective, to disregard it as irrational, petty or otherwise beneath consideration is both a failure in that duty
and an ethical wrong. Fundamental ethics for having responsibility for a person includes
respect for self-determination, respect for culture and
respect for emotion. When you cast aside these, you get... well an awful lot of atrocities. Apart from the raft of colonial horrors, you get incarceration of the neurodivergent (a and c), programs of forced ethnic assimilation (a, b, c) and other assorted bad shit. Ethics within my field has in
very large part grown out of 'how do we
not act like the British' (only partly joking there).
4. The
bare minimum to be considered
in the ballpark of 'wisely' is to do so with all perspectives in mind and awareness of your own biases and how they affect your judgement/heuristics. That is... not happening. In fact, posters have outright
rejected perspectives they don't like and refused to use them in decision-making (dear fuck the Keiko salt).
)
