Print

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

[Strongpoint]

In the case of an ignorant bigot and not an actual fascist, sure, they might change their mind. But it should never be expected (nor be the responsibility) of persons whom the hate targets. It's not their job to educate bigots.

It is not anyone's job to educate bigots. After all, every time you try to change a person for the better it is an act of altruism, an act of spending your valuable time to make a person and, by extension, the society better.

But people have a reasonable responsibility to not make the situation worse. Merely saying "I want to make you suffer for your views." is an immoral act by itself. All it can do is either do nothing at all or push the person deeper into their destructive radicalism. Actually doing something to make them suffer...

[MaxTheFox]

Glad people are standing up for me.

But when it is safe, it is a far better approach to go "You are wrong. I am not what you think. I am this and this. I do not wish for us to be enemies." especially if we are talking about a random person with no history of actual evil acts (and there are a big distance between doing evil acts, advocating for evil acts, and merely having stupid prejudices)

Respect is earned, not given so no one has such an obligation. Tolerance, on the other hand, is rather useful for the normal functionality of society. If you don't show tolerance - don't expect one. It is that simple.

It is freaking easy to tolerate opinions you find fine. Tolerance makes sense only when you actively dislike those opinions. And tolerance doesn't mean silence. For example, tolerance never stopped me from saying outright blasphemous things straight in the face of religious persons when I found it necessary.

1. But I do wish for me and them to be enemies. They hate me for existing, why would I bend over for them? I will be unable to convince them otherwise anyways.
2. I do not tolerate intolerance.

I couldn't care less about any stupid label someone tries to put on me. Words like "cishet" stink of hating people not for actions, not even for views or opinions but for their very nature and this type of labels, quite frankly, disgust me. But it has nothing to do with fragility.

Tell me how "cishet" is hateful. It can be, but so can any other label. But it wasn't in the context I used.

Snoop

A couple opinions I have on the topic :
• It is not the job of a persecuted minority to educate bigots. True. But it is the job - I'd say even the only job- of activists. While I was politically active in the (radical?) left, everyone I worked with was far too pure to soil their hands with discussing with hostiles or neutral parties - so in the end, they remained among themselves and for the group I was on, infighted to their way to dissolution.
"It's not my job to educate them" is a sentence that I have heard verbatum from activists. Not their job ? Then what is ?

This is gold!

A key thing to take away from this though is that not all minorities are activists, and they don't have to be. If you are not committed to spreading the word of your cause, then you are fully within your right to kick someone out of your sight for saying inappropriate things. You're allowed to say "I'm too tired to deal with this shit" without further explanation, and sometimes it's even necessary if the asshole is persistent enough to drive even the most reasonable man to insanity.

To both of you, I kinda agree. If they are clearly merely ignorant, sure I will try educating them. Happened a few times, actually. If they are knowingly hateful, they can honestly fuck off.

In the case of an ignorant bigot and not an actual fascist, sure, they might change their mind. But it should never be expected (nor be the responsibility) of persons whom the hate targets. It's not their job to educate bigots.

It is not anyone's job to educate bigots. After all, every time you try to change a person for the better it is an act of altruism, an act of spending your valuable time to make a person and, by extension, the society better.

But people have a reasonable responsibility to not make the situation worse. Merely saying "I want to make you suffer for your views." is an immoral act by itself. All it can do is either do nothing at all or push the person deeper into their destructive radicalism. Actually doing something to make them suffer...

But I think the situation is, in fact, better when bigots suffer as a consequence of their bigotry. It isn't better when they feel happier, at any rate.

[King Zultan]

What are you trying to say with this?

I'm saying you're blinded by hate, and the fact that you believe it's moral to beat and cause suffering on people you don't like puts you in the same boat as them, because you want the same things to happen to them that they want to happen to others, makes you just as bad as them.

This would apply if they weren't the ones calling for the death of black people, LGBT, Jews. Again, I'm not exactly targeting guiltless people. If you think we as a society should just stand there and do nothing against bigotry then fine. I will think you are a bad person for it, however. I don't think you should suffer for it, I just think it's a shit take.

You're acting as if people on the internet saying they want to kill people and people physically going out and killing someone is the same thing, and quite frankly I have never seen how people saying things has done anything more than hurt peoples feelings and hurt feelings are not the same thing as being injured or killed. Also how you feel about me has no affect on me, as I'm sure how I feel about you has no affect on you.

[MaxTheFox]

What are you trying to say with this?

I'm saying you're blinded by hate, and the fact that you believe it's moral to beat and cause suffering on people you don't like puts you in the same boat as them, because you want the same things to happen to them that they want to happen to others, makes you just as bad as them.

This would apply if they weren't the ones calling for the death of black people, LGBT, Jews. Again, I'm not exactly targeting guiltless people. If you think we as a society should just stand there and do nothing against bigotry then fine. I will think you are a bad person for it, however. I don't think you should suffer for it, I just think it's a shit take.

You're acting as if people on the internet saying they want to kill people and people physically going out and killing someone is the same thing, and quite frankly I have never seen how people saying things has done anything more than hurt peoples feelings and hurt feelings are not the same thing as being injured or killed. Also how you feel about me has no affect on me, as I'm sure how I feel about you has no affect on you.

It is definitely not the same as actually going out and killing people, but I still think it should not be allowed. It's not even about hurt feelings, it's about not wanting people calling for the death of minorities to exist online.

[Strongpoint]

1. But I do wish for me and them to be enemies. They hate me for existing, why would I bend over for them? I will be unable to convince them otherwise anyways.

Why are you so insisting on anyone saying you to bend? No one said that.

As for wishing to be enemies with anyone... The best way to deal with enemies is to make them stop being enemies and people do change. But even if change is impossible, it is better to be in a cold war situation than escalate to widespread violence.

I actually look at American politics with horror. Both sides are going full speed to a civil war while doing a happy choo-choo sound (No, I don't think there will be a Civil war as an army vs army. But as terrorism against terrorism... Oh yes, it is already there and it is growing)

I do not tolerate intolerance.

Can you define what it means to tolerate someone?

Tell me how "cishet" is hateful. It can be, but so can any other label.

Every time when a label is used to describe a group with any other word than this group uses, it is, at the very least, disrespectful.

But the funny thing... Cishet isn't even a real group. It describes something that doesn't exist, it creates a group where there is NO group at all. White heterosexual men are NOT a unified force with some unified agenda. And when such groups are invented it is scary. It is how humans get dehumanized not even for their views but for who they are.

But I think the situation is, in fact, better when bigots suffer as a consequence of their bigotry. It isn't better when they feel happier, at any rate.

Do you actually think that a happy person is more likely to take a gun and go for a rampage in a nearby gay club? Bigotry and violence grow from unhappiness (usually from self-inflicted unhappiness but others can contribute, too)
Also, it is simply unjust to punish people when there is no crime.

[MaxTheFox]

Responses in bold.

1. But I do wish for me and them to be enemies. They hate me for existing, why would I bend over for them? I will be unable to convince them otherwise anyways.

Why are you so insisting on anyone saying you to bend? No one said that.
Walking up to a homkphobe and trying to convince them to not be a homophobe is basically bending.

As for wishing to be enemies with anyone... The best way to deal with enemies is to make them stop being enemies and people do change. But even if change is impossible, it is better to be in a cold war situation than escalate to widespread violence.
It is impossible to change them, and letting them speak will just let their opinions spread.

I actually look at American politics with horror. Both sides are going full speed to a civil war while doing a happy choo-choo sound (No, I don't think there will be a Civil war as an army vs army. But as terrorism against terrorism... Oh yes, it is already there and it is growing)
Notice how it's mostly the far-right responsible for terrorism.

I do not tolerate intolerance.

Can you define what it means to tolerate someone?
To be willing to put up with their opinions.

Tell me how "cishet" is hateful. It can be, but so can any other label.

Every time when a label is used to describe a group with any other word than this group uses, it is, at the very least, disrespectful.
I heard some cis and heterosexual people use that exact label for themselves.

But the funny thing... Cishet isn't even a real group. It describes something that doesn't exist, it creates a group where there is NO group at all. White heterosexual men are NOT a unified force with some unified agenda. And when such groups are invented it is scary. It is how humans get dehumanized not even for their views but for who they are.
They are not an unified group, but they nevertheless face less oppression which is what I meant. I am not dehmanizing them whatsoever, and you are digging this up because you ran out of arguments to throw at me.

But I think the situation is, in fact, better when bigots suffer as a consequence of their bigotry. It isn't better when they feel happier, at any rate.

Do you actually think that a happy person is more likely to take a gun and go for a rampage in a nearby gay club? Bigotry and violence grow from unhappiness (usually from self-inflicted unhappiness but others can contribute, too)
No but if they are happy, they are validated for their beliefs and thus will spread those beliefs, leading to more general abuse. Morton's Fork.

Also, it is simply unjust to punish people when there is no crime.
Bigotry should be a crime. And online, the original topic of this thread, the "crime" is breaking the code of conduct.

[King Zultan]

You're acting as if people on the internet saying they want to kill people and people physically going out and killing someone is the same thing, and quite frankly I have never seen how people saying things has done anything more than hurt peoples feelings and hurt feelings are not the same thing as being injured or killed. Also how you feel about me has no affect on me, as I'm sure how I feel about you has no affect on you.

It is definitely not the same as actually going out and killing people, but I still think it should not be allowed. It's not even about hurt feelings, it's about not wanting people calling for the death of minorities to exist online.

You know you can ignore them right, I mean most of them are just saying shit like that to get the approval of the others but at the end of the day none of them are gonna act upon what they talk about, so in the end they're just a bunch of dip shits spouting crap on the internet that can safely be ignored.

Bigotry should be a crime.

But who decides what counts as bigotry and the punishment for it, also it sounds like a vague thing the government that implements it could use to jail those that go against their regime.

[MaxTheFox]

You're acting as if people on the internet saying they want to kill people and people physically going out and killing someone is the same thing, and quite frankly I have never seen how people saying things has done anything more than hurt peoples feelings and hurt feelings are not the same thing as being injured or killed. Also how you feel about me has no affect on me, as I'm sure how I feel about you has no affect on you.

It is definitely not the same as actually going out and killing people, but I still think it should not be allowed. It's not even about hurt feelings, it's about not wanting people calling for the death of minorities to exist online.

You know you can ignore them right, I mean most of them are just saying shit like that to get the approval of the others but at the end of the day none of them are gonna act upon what they talk about, so in the end they're just a bunch of dip shits spouting crap on the internet that can safely be ignored.

Bigotry should be a crime.

But who decides what counts as bigotry and the punishment for it, also it sounds like a vague thing the government that implements it could use to jail those that go against their regime.

1. I don't want to ignore them, I want them to be silenced. Besides, it's hard to ignore them in places like Twitter.
2. People keep saying this, but Canada has anti-hate-speech laws and isn't an authoritarian hellhole. The slippery slope is an useless fallacy. The law does not need to be objective.

[Cathar]

And online, the original topic of this thread, the "crime" is breaking the code of conduct.

Well, the original topic is more of the implications of Musk's buyout of Twitter. Which is turning out to be the most expensive shitpost of the year. Dude don't have enough cash to fullfill its contract and is now wriggling left and right to get out of it. And, as I tried to explain multiple times, he is not in favor of free speech, he's just a racist idiot.

You guys are barking at the wrong tree from the beggining.

I really don't get why you people are so eager to abandon the idea of political liberalism to the right.
Maybe you just haven't thought this through.

Bigotry should be a crime.

I'm trying very hard to walk the mile in your shoes... but there is no way anyone with a bit of political acumen can agree with that statement. Bad thoughts will never be a crime in a democracy.

[Strongpoint]

Walking up to a homkphobe and trying to convince them to not be a homophobe is basically bending.

So, if I, an atheist, tell a religious person that they believe in an evil fairy tale, I am bending to them? Good to know! 

Telling someone "you are wrong" is not bending

It is impossible to change them, and letting them speak will just let their opinions spread.

Impossible to change them is evidently not true. At least say - it is unlike to change them.

And censorship doesn't really work against extremist ideologies, you'll just push them into more isolated channels, where it will be harder to fight them with counterpropaganda and prevent potential recruits from joining them. While also making them look like persecuted martyrs. Bringing a problem out of your sight won't solve it.

Also, I have quite egoistic reasons to be anti-censorship. I want to have the ability to stay stuff like "Christianity is a stupid religion about an eternal omnipotent creator of the Universe who magically fucked a hairless monkey to conceive himself in an act of recursive incest. Amazingly, millions of people believe such schizophrenic nonsense," and not get arrested for offending someone's feelings and being an anti-religious bigot

To be willing to put up with their opinions.

Your definition makes it more confusing

[Starver]

"Cishet" is like any other term. It can a good shortcut be best used to describe those not transexual and/or homosexual (or otherwise not entirely that side of binary) because "not transexual or homosexual or otherwise personally affected by LGBTQI+++ issues, but sympathetic to the problems" is often long-winded, or it can be thrown at (deserving or undeserving) anyone perceived as not an "us" by the rather more militant tendencies in the non-cis/non-het community who are maybe a bit less than amiable with their perceived 'normie' persecutors.

(Ditto 'normie', 'neurotypical', 'white', 'woke', 'liberal' and (inversely, in various ways) 'queer' and the N-word. Maybe not always necessarily a badge of honour, for the membersip, but not automatically a condemnation unless the caster of the term intends it to be an aspertion upon the target. The latter two also tend to be terms only to be used to describe yourself (or if explicitly invited to  by those who can do by dint of their own membership, in very careful circumstances) otherwise you might easily get thought to be using it detractingly, after being successfully reclaimed for the "us" of the respective communities from the one or other degree of historic "anti-Us" usage . Especially the N-word, but I'd probably not casually use the Q one to(wards) someone's face either. Except entirely in the more innocent Enid Blyton context.

But I'm happy to be thought of as cishet, in an "allied" way. As much as there's any accuracy to such an absolutist term. Having it thrown at me in a slanging match from a non-cishet individual who seems to think I cannot be an ally would be saddening, but mostly because of their own prejudices, not because it is prejudicious in and of itself.


Of course, in a text-only community like this, the cues to work out how it is meant (and taken) are limited to the explicit (or the aftermath) and leaves open the possibility of my being called something and I take it as a complement.

(Or I choose to. I've been called a "jannie" by some 4chan-inspired wannabe, in another locale recently, and it just amuses me to think/say, that yes, I am keeping the place clean and helping to clear up your deliberate mess.)

[MaxTheFox]

Bigotry should be a crime.

I'm trying very hard to walk the mile in your shoes... but there is no way anyone with a bit of political acumen can agree with that statement. Bad thoughts will never be a crime in a democracy.

Bad thoughts won't, but publicly expressing that you want all gays/blacks/whatever to be killed should not be legal. There is no contradiction with democracy here, nor is there a slippery slope. Inciting discrimination or violence against minorities is pretty clear-cut.

Walking up to a homkphobe and trying to convince them to not be a homophobe is basically bending.

So, if I, an atheist, tell a religious person that they believe in an evil fairy tale, I am bending to them? Good to know! 

Telling someone "you are wrong" is not bending

It is impossible to change them, and letting them speak will just let their opinions spread.

Impossible to change them is evidently not true. At least say - it is unlike to change them.

And censorship doesn't really work against extremist ideologies, you'll just push them into more isolated channels, where it will be harder to fight them with counterpropaganda and prevent potential recruits from joining them. While also making them look like persecuted martyrs. Bringing a problem out of your sight won't solve it.

Also, I have quite egoistic reasons to be anti-censorship. I want to have the ability to stay stuff like "Christianity is a stupid religion about an eternal omnipotent creator of the Universe who magically fucked a hairless monkey to conceive himself in an act of recursive incest. Amazingly, millions of people believe such schizophrenic nonsense," and not get arrested for offending someone's feelings and being an anti-religious bigot

To be willing to put up with their opinions.

Your definition makes it more confusing

1. You misunderstood. Trying to convince someone dead-set on hating you for what you are to not hate you, rather than simply hating them back, is bending over.
2. So unlikely that it might as well be impossible.
3. First of all, if they're out of sight, they're not expressing their evil opinions publicly, which is exactly what I want. Whoever seeks their echo chambers out to join them is probably a lost cause from the get-go. And no, they will not look like martyrs. Remember, censorship of fascists already happens in many communities, nobody thinks of them as martyrs.
4. I think you are wrong about this, but yeah I agree with the sentiment that religious freedom should be a thing. It's if you then say "kill all Christians", then you should be silenced, not that I think you believe that. Censorship is not a binary thing.
5. I don't know what is confusing about that.

[Cathar]

Bad thoughts won't, but publicly expressing that you want all gays/blacks/whatever to be killed should not be legal. There is no contradiction with democracy here, nor is there a slippery slope. Inciting discrimination or violence against minorities is pretty clear-cut.

Inciting violence is already a crime, including in the US, if it leads to violence being commited - in which case it is covered by conspiracy laws, making the agitator liable for the same crime as the actual culprit (amusingly, this means Trump would face treason charges had he not be under presidential immunity).
Most countries have common sense free speech limitations, but they are justifed on an individual basis, as individual exceptions to the general rule of free speech.
I mean, if that's what you mean by "Bigotry should be a crime", well, it already is... Not sure I want it to go further tho.

[brewer bob]

And censorship doesn't really work against extremist ideologies, you'll just push them into more isolated channels, where it will be harder to fight them with counterpropaganda and prevent potential recruits from joining them. While also making them look like persecuted martyrs. Bringing a problem out of your sight won't solve it.

Pushing them into isolated channels makes it much harder for them to recruit. It doesn't solve the issue, but is an effective way to prevent hate from spreading. It won't make them look like martyrs except for those who hold the same views or are sympathetic to their cause. No sensible person likes fascism.^[1]

But yes, it won't in itself solve the problem, as will not talking with fascists/bigots and changing their minds. Both are some kind of "band-aid fixes" that don't address the underlying issues giving rise to such thoughts (e.g., economic inequality, etc.).

^[1] Added note: this method doesn't work with fascists involved in party politics or public figures. I'm mostly talking about "street level" fascists. Combating fascism on a parliamentary level is a different thing and I don't think anyone has found any solid methods that work.

[MaxTheFox]

Bad thoughts won't, but publicly expressing that you want all gays/blacks/whatever to be killed should not be legal. There is no contradiction with democracy here, nor is there a slippery slope. Inciting discrimination or violence against minorities is pretty clear-cut.

Inciting violence is already a crime, including in the US, if it leads to violence being commited - in which case it is covered by conspiracy laws, making the agitator liable for the same crime as the actual culprit (amusingly, this means Trump would face treason charges had he not be under presidential immunity).
Most countries have common sense free speech limitations, but they are justifed on an individual basis, as individual exceptions to the general rule of free speech.
I mean, if that's what you mean by "Bigotry should be a crime", well, it already is... Not sure I want it to go further tho.

I think even if it doesn't lead to violence being committed, it should also be illegal. That's about as far as I'm willing to go however.

But noooo, bad ebil leffist Max wants literally 1984. Muh freeze peach!