3 ms·

I'm not following your suggestion of conflation. The correct way to read my comment is as a criticism of the clear rhetorical support for violence in its parent

I'm not following your suggestion of conflation. The correct way to read my comment is as a criticism of the clear rhetorical support for violence in its parent. I am full of controversial opinions, I know...

anigbrowl 9y ago
The contents of a persons heart are known only to them and fundamentally unknowable by anyone else barring some scientific breakthrough, so they cannot and should not be subject to sanction. The words that come out of their mouth, on the other hand, are discernable. You say the correct way to read your comment is as a criticism of the rhetorical support for violence in the parent, but the parent comment in question treats of violent opposition to Nazism, an inherently violent ideology, which you seem to be overlooking. Allow me to illustrate how this looks from where I'm sitting: Abel: Nazism is good! I support putting [people I dislike] into camps and killing them. Baker: I find Abel's views repugnant and threatening to me, and if he expresses them in my presence I will punch him. Charlie: Baker is terribly violent! Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' but don't have anything to say about Nazism itself. It seems like a strange double standard.
- pheldagryph 9y ago
  > Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' That is one HECK of an uncharitable assumption. My original comment speaks for itself. You are coming uncomfortably close to calling me a Nazi sympathizer. I don't appreciate that. In case the ancestors get edited: >>> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and truth than with violence >> Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I have no doubt you're a good hearted person and have not made any assumptions to the contrary, but it does read as if you are chilled by a request for evidence that reason and truth are the best means of combating racial purity ideologies. It would certainly be nice to rely on reason and truth if those strategies are indeed reliable. But the extant question is what if they're not? The historical record suggests that appeals to reason, truth, and morality actually have a really terrible record as practical responses to autocracy. As we've been talking about Nazis, it's an easily verifiable fact that there was abundant intellectual, political, and religious opposition to their ideology and that none of these proved especially effective. Once the nazis got comfortable and installed their people in key administrative positions, they just started arresting people whose public behavior was politically inconvenient for them. I don't want to start drawing parallels with individual current events which is more likely to confuse than to inform, but they're not hard to imagine.
    - pheldagryph 9y ago
      You continue to misrepresent my past comments. I will read nothing further from you, save for an apology.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        I'm not misrepresenting it, I'm giving you my best understanding of your rather cryptic utterances. It would be a lot easier to understand your point if you would explain it in greater detail. I realize you think your original comment speaks for itself, but I'm telling you that I'm finding it vague and confusing.

anigbrowl 9y ago

The contents of a persons heart are known only to them and fundamentally unknowable by anyone else barring some scientific breakthrough, so they cannot and should not be subject to sanction. The words that come out of their mouth, on the other hand, are discernable. You say the correct way to read your comment is as a criticism of the rhetorical support for violence in the parent, but the parent comment in question treats of violent opposition to Nazism, an inherently violent ideology, which you seem to be overlooking. Allow me to illustrate how this looks from where I'm sitting: Abel: Nazism is good! I support putting [people I dislike] into camps and killing them. Baker: I find Abel's views repugnant and threatening to me, and if he expresses them in my presence I will punch him. Charlie: Baker is terribly violent! Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' but don't have anything to say about Nazism itself. It seems like a strange double standard.

pheldagryph 9y ago
> Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' That is one HECK of an uncharitable assumption. My original comment speaks for itself. You are coming uncomfortably close to calling me a Nazi sympathizer. I don't appreciate that. In case the ancestors get edited: >>> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and truth than with violence >> Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I have no doubt you're a good hearted person and have not made any assumptions to the contrary, but it does read as if you are chilled by a request for evidence that reason and truth are the best means of combating racial purity ideologies. It would certainly be nice to rely on reason and truth if those strategies are indeed reliable. But the extant question is what if they're not? The historical record suggests that appeals to reason, truth, and morality actually have a really terrible record as practical responses to autocracy. As we've been talking about Nazis, it's an easily verifiable fact that there was abundant intellectual, political, and religious opposition to their ideology and that none of these proved especially effective. Once the nazis got comfortable and installed their people in key administrative positions, they just started arresting people whose public behavior was politically inconvenient for them. I don't want to start drawing parallels with individual current events which is more likely to confuse than to inform, but they're not hard to imagine.
  - pheldagryph 9y ago
    You continue to misrepresent my past comments. I will read nothing further from you, save for an apology.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      I'm not misrepresenting it, I'm giving you my best understanding of your rather cryptic utterances. It would be a lot easier to understand your point if you would explain it in greater detail. I realize you think your original comment speaks for itself, but I'm telling you that I'm finding it vague and confusing.