I would completely stand behind this comment if the word "harm" wasn't completely redefined in the last few years. Just in case: speech, however abusive, or denial of association or services is never "harm". Replying to a deleted comment: I think that white-only service is asshole behavior, just as holocaust denial and other stuff. I fight and would continue to fight it with education, counter-propaganda and civil bo…
You’re fucked either way mate because “silence is violence”
Watch out, pointing out that "silence is violence" is an oxymoron is also violence.
America seems to be an interesting country where people silence others' political beliefs, as opposed to the usual military violence, tightly-established hierarchies, and economic oppression...
I agree. How crazy is it to think its ok for donations to one of the established parties should have repercussions on your emplyment? Dont people see that the other side could want the same thing then.
When one of the parties is run by an open bigot, active financial support of that party says a lot about the donor.
Then you get people who silently support the views.
i'll bet there are still a bunch of people who silently oppose interracial marriage in the US. But... they will be dead soon and their ideas will die with them
The final Democracy Institute poll ( https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1354506/us-election-202... ) that came out Saturday predicts a Trump victory contrary to most other polls, because it found that 79% of Trump voters do not tell others that they support him, while only 21% of Biden voters are shy. USC's poll predicts a Biden victory, but when experimental questions are asked to figure out how those polled reall…
Meanwhile a convoy of armed Trump supporters literally tried to run the Biden campaign bus off the road [1].
That's the reality Trump supporters are using fascist tactics (and I'm not exaggerating here, these acts are rightbout of a fascist playbook) while complaining that liberals say mean things to them.
And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.
There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility. An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me. It's a great t…
America seems to be an interesting country where people silence others' political beliefs, as opposed to the usual military violence, tightly-established hierarchies, and economic oppression...
America seems to be an interesting country
"interesting" in the sense of the Chinese curse phrase "may you live in interesting times", perhaps.
And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.
There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility. An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me. It's a great t…
You should be civil because it's a representation of your own character. To do otherwise is literally you being the problem.
My company got spammed by Expensify CEOs political views. Some non Americans complained about receiving the irrelevant email. Some Americans were targeting even that. Apparently foreigners have no right to NOT RECEIVE political endorsements that mirrors their political views. Your politics is too toxic. Sorry but it has to be said.
And just after I read this on HN I see this shared by a fellow brit asking WTF https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-camp-cancels-austin-texa... and indeed... it's hard to comprehend of this level of voter and campaign intimidation like this anywhere. When I've read things like this in the past it's been in failed states.
I saw that video. It's not actually clear cut to me who was at fault. The truck was in the right lane, the bus and SUV right behind in the left lane. Bus merged right (into truck's lane immediately in front) SUV could not occupy the space already occupied by the truck as SUV tried following bus. Truck did not yield, SUV tried to wedge in and straddled both lanes. There was subsequent contact but I'm not sure who initiated it. Never the less, you should not drive in two lanes --you should wait till it's safe to merge, it's basic traffic safety to not change lanes till it's safe to do so.
It's a nice ideal, but once the views become too extreme, it's not practical. Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example.
See calling some things "basic rights" is already a point of contention and a loaded way of framing this, as if people are evil and wanting to not give other people something fundamental, essential for life, and "basic" that's been already decided. It's not decided, and a lot of what we've started calling "rights" these days aren't all that basic or universally agreed. The way you've phrased it means that it's perfec…
> The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others.
It is, given the right situation. It is not as if the civil rights movement of the 60s got the very real improvements it did get by accepting being treated as crap. Rather, it got rather violent at times. What you suggest would make certain no real improvement could ever happen. Which make sense if you belong to the people that has a good situation in the current status quo, but it absolutely sucks for the people that doesn't. Quite often to change the status quo to the better you first need to make it unpalatable enough to the people that is favored by it.
In this discussion, I don't see why they're not equivalent. We're talking about reasons why people hide their political beliefs, not abstract ethics.
Ethics applies here just as well. You are trying to equivocate the actions of those who actually attempt to kill those who disagree politically (aka “terrorism”) with attempts at eliminating platforms for wide dissemination of speech.
That's not what ostracizing means, and you know it.