4 ms·

>Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was.

>Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was. No, the right to exist in peace is not negotiable. If it is then we're living in a world that fundamentally is built on evil principles as it makes human life without value. It gives a justification to murder, rape, and steal so long as you get away with it. Human lives must have fundamental value and with it fundamental rights such as the right to self-identification (ex. gender identity and expression), economic autonomy (free to trade in a free market), and social autonomy (ex. freedom of association). Without those rights we get a brutal world where only the strongest decides what's good and right. We've already had that for the majority of history. I'm sure no one in the West would want to go back to those times where life was short and painful. Only someone foolish would think such conditions are desirable or sustainable (at least with our level of technology, especially in warfare). >But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone. But I will say if you want to be my friend or part of my family then you do have to adhere to some moral standard I find compatible. That's not up for negotiation. Everyone would agree that ultimately if you can't agree that X person has the right to exist in Y way (ex. allowing a transwoman to medically and socially transition) then there's nothing to debate. It's a conflict between fundamental principles. There's nothing to be gained by one bowing to the other. They're antagonists of the worse sort. Better they not associate than 'debate' which usually entails more violence than non-association. Also, criticizing someone in the public sphere isn't even equivalent to mobbing. If I send you death threats or call your boss then that's mobbing, harassment, and bullying. If I call you a dipstick on Twitter and not evade your block afterwards; it's mean words. There's a key difference I should think.

13thLetter 11y ago
> False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone Then I don't have a beef with you. But the students in these articles are mobbing people physically, are preventing others from speaking, are chasing people out of their jobs. That is wrong.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  I don't think protests constitute mobbing. Also, I believe in the video the Master at Yale he wasn't mobbed but rather had several public meetings like this. But on the whole, I still don't see any evidence of there being a problem. It just seems to me that there's a strong contingent of social moderates to conservatives that would prefer people to toe the line out of some unnamed tradition. To me, tradition and authority warrant no respect unless it can be justified.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > I don't think protests constitute mobbing. A large group of people surrounding one someone and screaming at them, or barging into events and disrupting them, or spitting on people? That's mobbing and it's wrong. > But on the whole, I still don't see any evidence of there being a problem. Would you feel the same way if it was Tea Partiers doing the exact same things? > To me, tradition and authority warrant no respect unless it can be justified. These traditions are what allow people with strongly varying societal views to coexist peacefully in a large country such as this one. The only alternatives to such traditions are either segregation or civil war.
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      >A large group of people surrounding one someone and screaming at them, or barging into events and disrupting them, or spitting on people? That's mobbing and it's wrong. Are we even looking at the same videos from FIRE? All I see is one woman screaming at one man in a crowd. ONE, not two, not three, not many. ONE person is screaming in the FIRE video. Secondly, where in the videos is anyone spitting on the Yale staffer? Also, lets talk about disrupting events. That's what even my dad (an old hippie) would call a protest. Mind you, my dad is more conservative these days (a Catholic and the like), but I'm sure he wouldn't call modern protests mobbing either. Disrupting events to raise awareness to grievances (whether or not they're genuine) isn't immoral. I think that's something you and I will never agree upon. >Would you feel the same way if it was Tea Partiers doing the exact same things? Yes, they can be as loud as they want, imo, and they have been already loud as they want. It seems you want to play a mind game where people should be silent unless it falls within your standard of legitimate complaint. You and I don't get to decide what's a legitimate complaint since we only do what's good/bad for ourselves. If the some conservative Catholic organization wants to stage a protest to prevent ENDA from passing in Congress who am I to tell them otherwise? The 1st Amendment furnishes them such a right to peaceably assemble. If they're rude or otherwise impolite about it, that's a matter of mere taste/sentiment. It's not a matter of law. >These traditions are what allow people with strongly varying societal views to coexist peacefully in a large country such as this one. You mean the tradition of silence is acceptable because it gives way to false peace? Really? >The only alternatives to such traditions are either segregation or civil war. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy. Simply put, if your views require everyone to remain silent or never raise their voice when the established order refuses to change, then you will get civil war. As for segregation, people already do that without raising their voices, Google white flight. TLDR-version: 1. Can you show in the article's FIRE video where anyone but one person is screaming? Also, what spitting (there's none in the video)? 2. You're making some faulty assumptions that the Tea Party movement didn't have disruptive protests when in fact there were several small scale protests around 2010 throughout the US. 3. You want people to peacefully coexist, but you also want people to basically STFU unless you approve of their views. I'm not inclined to agree. People have the moral and legal right to protest. It's not for you or me to decide. 4. What's with this segregation and civil war hyperbole? You really think one screaming woman at Yale equals massive social disorder? Maybe you and I are not on the same page here, but I honestly think you're being dishonest by this false equivalence.

13thLetter 11y ago

> False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone Then I don't have a beef with you. But the students in these articles are mobbing people physically, are preventing others from speaking, are chasing people out of their jobs. That is wrong.

norea-armozel 11y ago
I don't think protests constitute mobbing. Also, I believe in the video the Master at Yale he wasn't mobbed but rather had several public meetings like this. But on the whole, I still don't see any evidence of there being a problem. It just seems to me that there's a strong contingent of social moderates to conservatives that would prefer people to toe the line out of some unnamed tradition. To me, tradition and authority warrant no respect unless it can be justified.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > I don't think protests constitute mobbing. A large group of people surrounding one someone and screaming at them, or barging into events and disrupting them, or spitting on people? That's mobbing and it's wrong. > But on the whole, I still don't see any evidence of there being a problem. Would you feel the same way if it was Tea Partiers doing the exact same things? > To me, tradition and authority warrant no respect unless it can be justified. These traditions are what allow people with strongly varying societal views to coexist peacefully in a large country such as this one. The only alternatives to such traditions are either segregation or civil war.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    >A large group of people surrounding one someone and screaming at them, or barging into events and disrupting them, or spitting on people? That's mobbing and it's wrong. Are we even looking at the same videos from FIRE? All I see is one woman screaming at one man in a crowd. ONE, not two, not three, not many. ONE person is screaming in the FIRE video. Secondly, where in the videos is anyone spitting on the Yale staffer? Also, lets talk about disrupting events. That's what even my dad (an old hippie) would call a protest. Mind you, my dad is more conservative these days (a Catholic and the like), but I'm sure he wouldn't call modern protests mobbing either. Disrupting events to raise awareness to grievances (whether or not they're genuine) isn't immoral. I think that's something you and I will never agree upon. >Would you feel the same way if it was Tea Partiers doing the exact same things? Yes, they can be as loud as they want, imo, and they have been already loud as they want. It seems you want to play a mind game where people should be silent unless it falls within your standard of legitimate complaint. You and I don't get to decide what's a legitimate complaint since we only do what's good/bad for ourselves. If the some conservative Catholic organization wants to stage a protest to prevent ENDA from passing in Congress who am I to tell them otherwise? The 1st Amendment furnishes them such a right to peaceably assemble. If they're rude or otherwise impolite about it, that's a matter of mere taste/sentiment. It's not a matter of law. >These traditions are what allow people with strongly varying societal views to coexist peacefully in a large country such as this one. You mean the tradition of silence is acceptable because it gives way to false peace? Really? >The only alternatives to such traditions are either segregation or civil war. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy. Simply put, if your views require everyone to remain silent or never raise their voice when the established order refuses to change, then you will get civil war. As for segregation, people already do that without raising their voices, Google white flight. TLDR-version: 1. Can you show in the article's FIRE video where anyone but one person is screaming? Also, what spitting (there's none in the video)? 2. You're making some faulty assumptions that the Tea Party movement didn't have disruptive protests when in fact there were several small scale protests around 2010 throughout the US. 3. You want people to peacefully coexist, but you also want people to basically STFU unless you approve of their views. I'm not inclined to agree. People have the moral and legal right to protest. It's not for you or me to decide. 4. What's with this segregation and civil war hyperbole? You really think one screaming woman at Yale equals massive social disorder? Maybe you and I are not on the same page here, but I honestly think you're being dishonest by this false equivalence.