51–58 of 58 posts
Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…
People are sick and tired of anti-white (pro-nonwhite) de jure policies and replacement immigration. They feel this country is their rightful homeland and are angry that they had no vote in being replaced. These reactions could have been predicted and were. I guess you can call that "racist" and "white supremacist" but the name-calling just eggs them on and is "not an argument." Instead, let's explain why the white e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if these things happen to a group with more moral nuance It's the "more moral nuance" criteria that terrifies me though. Because that's ultimately a proxy for "I feel good / bad about this group". If rules as usual are suspended for dealing with a group, I'm not going to rest it on "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" Advocating systematic oppression is a concrete reason. But what degree rises to forfeiting normal rig…
I think you're overthinking the extent of things. Nobody is saying these people should be shot on site, for instance. But I'm not going to lose any sleep if they're shunned by society. As long as government is not imposing anything, I'm ok with businesses not wanting to be associated with them. Also, if you're going, "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" That implies that maybe there is nuance. I would argue that nuance…
Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them.
But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis different from them?
HelloMcFly's "actively and publicly working towards the oppression of others" seems like a decent standard.
I'd just prefer to have some framework that doesn't justify itself with "Nazis are bad because they're Nazis" (which is what my phrasing above was getting at). Essentially, the trotting out child pornographers (who nobody wants to defend) to try and enact free speech restriction (which people would otherwise want to defend).
Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…
I struggle with this too. I felt it especially during the "first wave", when the clip of Richard Spencer getting punched in the face was being circulated. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly support free speech. I believe that any view should be able to expressed without fear of persecution, bodily harm, or death. Even those that constitute as "hate speech". I believe, at a fundamental level, that expressing views and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Jones v Mayer Co, Griggs v Duke Power Co, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.
Almost all involving civil disobedience
My point being that one of the great features of our government is that there are methods of changing things that do not involve breaking the law.
One of the most effective efforts for Civil Rights as a whole in the 1960s was increasing minority turnout to the ballots, as suddenly their interests had to be taken into account by those wishing to be elected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Jones v Mayer Co, Griggs v Duke Power Co, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.
> That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. All of them involved someone breaking the law on the books, and either being held accountable (e.g., Duke Power)—which I'm not sure is actual progress, though the passage of the law, which, in these examples, was usually a result of civil disobedience, might be—or having the law invalidated after the fact (e.g., Roe). So I'm not…
A) Breaking the law and then appealing to the judicial or legislative or executive for redress
B) Repeatedly breaking the law in pursuit of justice because it's inconvenient
The latter furthers dissolving the rule of law. The former supports it in an odd sort of way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're overthinking the extent of things. Nobody is saying these people should be shot on site, for instance. But I'm not going to lose any sleep if they're shunned by society. As long as government is not imposing anything, I'm ok with businesses not wanting to be associated with them. Also, if you're going, "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" That implies that maybe there is nuance. I would argue that nuance…
Agreed on the former. On the later, it's the why the nuance isn't presence in Nazis that I want a firmer grip on. Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them. But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis differe…
Read about WWII. Read about what these people actually believe. Generally, people aren't willing to give nuance to a group that actively calls for genocide.
"Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them."
Yes, they do. Because their set of beliefs is inherently evil and violent.
"But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis different from them?"
I don't know, and I honestly don't care.
"I'd just prefer to have some framework that doesn't justify itself with "Nazis are bad because they're Nazis" (which is what my phrasing above was getting at). Essentially, the trotting out child pornographers (who nobody wants to defend) to try and enact free speech restriction (which people would otherwise want to defend)."
I mean, you do you. But again, Nazis are bad because they are Nazis. There is no such thing as a good Nazi. They are working to do harm to others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed on the former. On the later, it's the why the nuance isn't presence in Nazis that I want a firmer grip on. Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them. But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis differe…
"On the later, it's the why the nuance isn't presence in Nazis that I want a firmer grip on." Read about WWII. Read about what these people actually believe. Generally, people aren't willing to give nuance to a group that actively calls for genocide. "Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them." Yes, they do. Because the…
And yeowch. Is it not apparent that your line of reasoning just as easily leads to "Jews are evil" if that happens to be the prevailing sentiment / news / way you were raised?