Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

A healthy disputeculture would not consist in shouting louder than your opponents, but rather something where the observer could measure the urgency of a given topic simply by checking how "loud" (passionate) the argument is being held.

Why on earth would anyone care how "passionate" people are? That doesn't say anything at all about whether something is right or even matters. I mean, to take an example upthread, you'd get an awful lot of passion in the late Weimar Republic. This doesn't seem healthy to me.

Anyway,

It only contradicts it if you adhere to a narrow notion that tone will never play a role in debateculture. There are plenty of points to be scored by mastering the theatrics of the game, so that can't be a exhaustive definition of debate. Nothing assures that things shall remain factual in disputeculture, but in debateculture it was never the point to begin with, because there success is defined by other measures.

Don't you see how this is directly contradictory to suggesting that other people are "showing indignation" by disagreeing? Your previous statement assumes that tone can only be associated with real emotional upset. Anyway, your positions on "debateculture" and "disputeculture" are basically backward here - it's people who have the strongest feelings about something who are more likely to be more worried about winning than being right. But ultimately, there's no actual such thing as objective "being right" - people only have the set of "facts" they believe. The stronger the emotional commitment to those beliefs, the worse off everyone is.

[Maximum™]

Again, never said we had to murder them, they'll generally give up looooooooong before that point.

It's not a philosophy brave people with strong wills tend to be drawn to, after all.

[dragdeler]

Most wrongs are difficult to live with and easy to perpetrate[1]. What even is an argument?! Come on let's be honest here. At least in a dispute one is topic-oriented, if two positions find themselves to be irreconcilable, it shall be known that being solution-oriented will not be a possibility in a given case. A debate is just a rhetorical ping pong match that is completly disembodied from the subject.

You'd still want to elect people who are good at finding compromises, in both cases. How much something adheres to decorum says even less about it's content, than the levels of passion involved.



1: I own factory, I neglect security, very easy for me to continue saving money. Not so easy to shut up about it once you had to deal with a few corpses at work. Name a single modern problem that doesn't basically consist in the more powerful side stalling, and I'll name you 10 where it does in exchange.

Does he still wonder why I couldn't stop myself from jumping in because the fucking word humility fell (oh yeah, context, go check it, it's great), your representations of "the other side" are childish.

[Maximum Spin]

A debate is just a rhetorical ping pong match that is completly disembodied from the subject. [...] How much something adheres to decorum

If you think either of these are what I care about, you've completely missed the point. Especially the concept of "decorum".

Anyway, you have the right to define "humility" different from the way I do, but that doesn't change the fact that your definition isn't what I was talking about. Substitute whatever alternative word you like, if that would help.

[Micro102]

If it's okay to kill or imprison someone for wanting things you think are bad, then everyone gets that privilege.

Ok, then you don't believe in the concept of police or prison, and I can't take you seriously on this. If you want to turn the ability for humans to tell the ethical difference between the hating of skin color, and hating murder of innocents, into a murky watered down soup, then that's your problem. Hopefully you are just trying to be contrarian.

[Maximum Spin]

If it's okay to kill or imprison someone for wanting things you think are bad, then everyone gets that privilege.

Ok, then you don't believe in the concept of police or prison, and I can't take you seriously on this. If you want to turn the ability for humans to tell the ethical difference between the hating of skin color, and hating murder of innocents, into a murky watered down soup, then that's your problem. Hopefully you are just trying to be contrarian.

You seriously don't get the difference between actual actions being crimes, and thoughtcrime? No, I'm not being contrarian, this is pretty important and obvious.

ETA: Ugggggh, let me try to make this clear again, even though I know it's fruitless.
Nobody here is saying that "hating murder of innocents", or, more accurately, hating people because you perceive them as hateful, is the same as hating people based on skin color. What we're saying is that hating someone is not grounds for unprovoked violence. If you think it's okay to harm people because you hate them, you can't then say "but only if it's the right hate". Other people are just as confident that their hates are right as you are of yours. That is the sense in which your position is identical to a skinhead's. Both of you believe that your hatred entitles you to decide whether and how someone else should live.

[Micro102]

It doesn't matter how confident their hatred is. Just like it doesn't matter that the people committing hate crimes on random Jewish people around the world think they are justified because a country thousands of miles away that had a majority Jewish population committed warcrimes. They attacked someone because of immutable traits, not actions. A person cannot do anything about their immutable traits (hence the word, immutable), but someone can do something about their actions. And these two things must be treated differently. That's why we have a special category in law called hate crimes. The groups protected under hate crimes specifically have immutable traits (except religion but that's a whole other can of worms). We don't have hate crime laws protecting people with political opinions. Therefore someone who assaults a black person because they are black should get a heavier sentence than someone who assaults someone for wanting to assault a black person. We have already worked all this out in our legal system and the two are not equal.

And as far as I'm concerned, identifying yourself as a Nazi, a group that was going for global genocide, is an open declaration that you want to kill billions of people. And we should have laws against such much like in modern Germany, lest we let it spread and fester into another tragedy.

[Random_Dragon]

Yeah it's clear this fuckwad is using whataboutism as an excuse for their neo-nazi sentiments, it's been clear from all the shit they've been posting in this thread again and again. No sense in engaging with a troll when they're visibly not interested in doing anything besides waste your time arguing in bad faith.

[Rolan7]

Again, never said we had to murder them, they'll generally give up looooooooong before that point.

It's not a philosophy brave people with strong wills tend to be drawn to, after all.

Doesn't matter what we actually said.  Some people read "fight Nazis" and read "I want to murder you".  It's VERY strange.

[Random_Dragon]

If someone takes "nazis are bad and should be fought" as a personal attack, that says a lot about them doesn't it. 

[scriver]

Doesn't matter what we actually said.  Some people read "fight Nazis" and read "I want to murder you".  It's VERY strange.

No, Max has repeatedly stated that he's entirely and literally for murdering people, and not just saying "fight Nazis". And again, he's not saying "only those who totally is provably aren't nazis in a completely unbiased and just investigation and trial" he is literally saying "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a nazi because the only reason they wouldn't disagree with me is that they are a nazi".

It's you who don't care what actually is being said here.

[Maximum™]

Ok are you mixing me and spin up?

I'm very confused here, and can't see what spin is saying.

Like, I did say there is no reason to worry about the safety of nazis, and that I don't think a nazi is worthy of protection or fairness when they can just... you know, stop all the fascist bullshit like *snaps fingers* that!

I'm all for popping fascist fuckers in the jaw, but I've punched others and been punched myself, and I don't think there are many people who can kill with one punch nor is anybody outside of a baby likely to be killed by a punch.

Yes, nazis are whiny crybabies but they aren't literal infants.

[Maximum Spin]

It doesn't matter how confident their hatred is. Just like it doesn't matter that the people committing hate crimes on random Jewish people around the world think they are justified because a country thousands of miles away that had a majority Jewish population committed warcrimes. They attacked someone because of immutable traits, not actions. A person cannot do anything about their immutable traits (hence the word, immutable), but someone can do something about their actions. And these two things must be treated differently. That's why we have a special category in law called hate crimes. The groups protected under hate crimes specifically have immutable traits (except religion but that's a whole other can of worms). We don't have hate crime laws protecting people with political opinions. Therefore someone who assaults a black person because they are black should get a heavier sentence than someone who assaults someone for wanting to assault a black person. We have already worked all this out in our legal system and the two are not equal.

And as far as I'm concerned, identifying yourself as a Nazi, a group that was going for global genocide, is an open declaration that you want to kill billions of people. And we should have laws against such much like in modern Germany, lest we let it spread and fester into another tragedy.

So to be clear, as long as it's not an immutable characteristic, it's fine. Punching someone for being an atheist, or a Communist, or wearing a hijab, or being bisexual and currently dating someone of the same sex, all fine. A politician, let's call him "Putin", putting political opponents in prison for refusing to "do something about their actions" which he considers unsocial, also fine. I mean, otherwise, you're just saying "my hate is right and your hate is wrong" again.

[Il Palazzo]

Yeah it's clear

No it isn't. You'd have to be really ungenerous to see it that way.

And as far as I'm concerned, identifying yourself as a Nazi, a group that was going for global genocide, is an open declaration that you want to kill billions of people. And we should have laws against such much like in modern Germany, lest we let it spread and fester into another tragedy.

Two comments here:
1. The hate speech laws, in Germany at least, criminalise inciting to violence - not self-identifying as a part of a group. You can still run a well-known neo-nazi pub no problem. It's that point that was made earlier: thought crimes are not actual crimes.
2. In any case, enforcing those laws should be left to the state. Not to vigilante violence. Since you brought up Germany, there was a high profile case, closed just a few months ago (Lina E. and the 'hammer gang' or somesuch), against people who took the 'punch a nazi' call seriously and went around dishing out brutal beatings (the aforementioned hammers were involved). They ended up with jail time, even though the judge was sympathetic towards the underlying motives. Because in this case >their< actions were criminal, not the neo-nazis' they assaulted.

[dragdeler]

So to be clear, as long as it's not an immutable characteristic, it's fine. Punching someone for being an atheist, or a Communist, or wearing a hijab, or being bisexual and currently dating someone of the same sex, all fine.

If they try to impose their ideology onto others, it's debatable I guess, alltough I'd much rather trust the users who expressed violent feelings, than you to be the judge of that ^^ ironically.


edit before you annoy the piss out of me again:

If they try to impose their ideology onto others

If their stated ideological goals exclude you from participation

(or some shmurble like that, it's not perfect either I could picture a political movement that is pretty confused about their stated ideological goals and has really murky messaging, that is not in consensus)