8 ms·

If someone is "simply holding different opinions" that people should have lesser rights, or be treated differently because of how they were born, then we should

If someone is "simply holding different opinions" that people should have lesser rights, or be treated differently because of how they were born, then we shouldn't really be surprised that people are upset by that. I'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of import taxes. I'm seeing it because they're backing politicians who are actively causing harm to real human beings.

jimbokun 9y ago
And here is a sterling example of the level of political discourse to which we have sunk. The post you reply to doesn't even list any specific political opinions, yet you already insinuate this person is a racist bigot. Well done.
- MBCook 9y ago
  GP is not insinuating that person is a racist, they're pointing out that some 'political' views are really hard to be civil about. For exactly that reason they stir up very strong feelings. I've seen strong feeling (but relatively civil discussion) about topics like handling North Korea or immigration. Things like taxes tend to be far more civil as GP pointed out. There was absolutely no need to call GP a bigot.
  - Cuuugi 9y ago
    Well obviously there's far too many instances to go into great detail, but the Democratic strategy for the past few decades is to call most conservatives strategies racist. That's certainly rarely the case, and next to never the intention. All i say, and ask is that you think to yourself, is this really racist? or do i just want to vote democrat now?
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    They really don't tend to be more civil. The only reason it may seem like that in America is that the USA has never really attempted to cut its deficit. Go look at political conversation in the UK and you'll find large numbers of left wingers / liberals foaming at the mouth about how the government trying to balance its budget is the same thing as hating people, killing them, that austerity is unthinkable evil, that any solution which isn't vast taxes on the rich is evidence of a defective moral compass, etc.
    - te_chris 9y ago
      "Go look at political conversation in the UK and you'll find large numbers of left wingers / liberals foaming at the mouth about how the government trying to balance its budget is the same thing as hating people, killing them" I see you've listened closely to them and engaged with their arguments.
      - peoplewindow 9y ago
        You don't believe me, huh. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-hurt-but-austerity-kills https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-h... "Recessions can hurt, but austerity kills" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels-britain-murders-poor-grenfell-tower https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels... "The victims of Grenfell Tower didn’t just die. Austerity, outsourcing and deregulation killed them" https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/apr/15/knife-crime-cause-death-dare-not-speak-name-austerity-cuts-youth-funding https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/ap... "The cause of death that dare not speak its name: austerity" Politicians that aim for a balanced budget without raising taxes = murderers is an exceptionally common refrain from the extreme end of the British left. It's hard to engage with their arguments because I don't share their basic axioms, namely, that they tend to assume there are no tradeoffs in life, and in particular, they tend to assume that tax revenues can be set to more or less any level without any negative side effects. Of course, if you argued that the Guardian is no longer really representative of mainstream left-wing opinion in the UK I'd support you on that, but I pointed out the extremism of the Guardian on HN a week or so ago and got downvoted a lot ... lots of Guardian readers here I think!
        te_chris 9y ago
        I don't get it, you don't like these articles because you find the idea that govt. negligence can actually kill people who rely on the govt. offensive?
        peoplewindow 9y ago
- gipp 9y ago
  > yet you already insinuate this person is a racist bigot Where on Earth did you read that into his post? He said those are the kinds of opinions that tend to elicit those responses, not anything about the OP.
staticelf 9y ago
What is harm? Lowering taxes could for example cause a lot of harm too indirectly if those taxes went to something important. I don't like religion for example and would like organized religion to be illegal in my country. If I went on TV and said this I bet this would be a very unpopular opinion and people would most likely send me tons of death threats. I think this mentality is stupid and if you are upset the correct assement is not being a child about it but actually proving me wrong by arguments and facts.
- dbingham 9y ago
  Well, to offer one clear example of harm, we have Nazis openly marching in the streets and arguing for racial cleansing of the US. As someone of Jewish decent, I find that pretty directly threatening. Given where those arguments have lead before -- the holocaust -- is allowing people to advocate for those viewpoints truly harmless?
  - staticelf 9y ago
    Yes because then you can easily break them down by showing people that those people are scumbags. Otherwise you will only see increased support if you do not let them express their opinions.
    - dbingham 9y ago
      I would broadly agree with this approach, but it's important to recognize that many of those advocating the Antifa violent approach take that approach from a considered position having carefully studied the history of the Nazi's rise to power. We can't just ignore the fact that there is a well reasoned argument there in favor of treating certain ideas and ideology as active violent threats. It's also a real and present issue to many people in the current climate.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    I hate to call Godwin's law on this, but this argument is descending in that direction. And keep in mind, all the people who profited off that war: IBM who made the punch cards to track those interned, Ford motors who built the rail tracks for concentration camps, Ford himself who had his employees hand out anti-semetic propaganda, Prescot Bush/American Standard Oil who sold oil to both sides .. all these companies funded and benefited greatly from the results of that conflict. By focusing on the Nazis you ignore the fact that wars needs funding. Few of those who funded and profited from that conflict were ever held accountable. Modern neo-Nazis are the modern boogieman. They make us afraid, but unless they are funded, their reach is quite limited. They are loud, but easily ignored. Those who give them a voice, news and media outlets, do so to profit from the readership.
peoplewindow 9y ago
I'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of import taxes Sure you are. You see someone vote for Trump and immediately assume it must be because they're an evil, ethically flawed person who inexplicably hates love, sunshine and puppies, whereas perhaps they mostly care about taxes. You even did it in this post. Your thinking is knee jerk and shallow, and it's people like you that are causing the problems in the first place.
- plandis 9y ago
  How is it knee-jerk and shallow? If you voted for Trump you either directly support Trump's social policies or you don't think they were abhorrent enough to not vote for him.
  - staticelf 9y ago
    Or maybe that the democratic economical policies were abhorrent enough to vote for Trump, despite his social policies?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    And everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton supported starting a war with Russia, a nuclear power? No? But that was her policy - the "no fly zone" that could only be implemented by shooting down Russian jets, or perhaps people have forgotten. In contrast Trump wanted to make peace with Russia. So maybe I can assume anyone who didn't vote Trump has a racist hatred of Russians.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - lkbm 9y ago
    I'm not pro-life, but I feel like if I thought abortion was actually murder of babies, I think I'd probably hold my nose and vote for whoever had the best chance of ending that practice. (Though, I also believe that would be Clinton--banning abortion is less viable than proving effective sex ed, and probably not hugely more effective.) Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation. (Again, I will grant that situation was going wrong without our involvement, but we're good at making things worse.) I voted for Clinton because I agree with most of her policies, and think she's immensely qualified, but I keep hearing "if you voted for Trump, that means you didn't consider his statements disqualifying" But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying. It's not absurd to consider bombing people worse than saying sexist and racist shit. It seems like a lot of Trump voters thought Trump's worst aspects were "just talk". There wasn't an option for "Clinton without the interventionism" on the ballot. Similarly, there's no "Trump without the sexism/racism" option. I will grant that most of them didn't have "Clinton bombed Libya" as their justification for their Trump vote. Abortion, though, I think is a real reason for a lot of religious people. I don't think my vote for Clinton should be taken to mean I'm okay with the positions she pushed for in North Africa and the Middle East, and that means also not declaring Trump voters were necessarily okay with his crap either.
xkvd 9y ago
> [if someone thinks people should] be treated differently because of how they were born [then outrage they face is justified] This has always piqued my curiosity -- would you mind explaining? Why is this such a deep tenet that I hear it so often as justification for shunning people? Apparently, there is something egregious about "treating people differently" because of "how they were born." What is wrong about this? Can you make this statement more concrete? How are the following "treatments" egregious? * Someone is born deaf, so his parents give him care related to his disability, which is different compared to what they would have done otherwise. * Someone was born with a great vocal range, so people encourage them to become a singer. * Someone is born with great mathematical abilities, so later in life they are top-pick by quantitative companies, which pay them extra for the value they are expected to deliver. * Someone has many insecurities and a history of nervous breakdowns and psychological damage, so we don't give them a high-stress job (for instance, the military doesn't hire them).
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  It's all fine for qualities that don't get tied to your (or your group's) personal and social identity. To go over your examples - the singing case is rather clear-cut, so is the math one (barring the Tiger Mother meme). Psychological damage starts entering into "neurodiversity" sphere. And about deaf people - there are many deaf communities which don't consider this as a disability, but as a different type of experience. In fact, the right for deaf parents to purposefully create a deaf child (when normally it would have working hearing) is a topic that's sometimes discussed. It's not a very detailed explanation, but the rule of thumb is - when there's a vocal group of people who tie some quality X into their identities, talking about discriminating on X gets off-limits in the current culture.
  - xkvd 9y ago
    My examples are just 4 quick things off the top of my head, there are probably many more. I also don't see your point about the deaf person (they're still treated differently -- you wouldn't talk vocally to them). I agree with your rule of thumb, but that seems like a positive description of the situation, not the normative one I'm looking for. You're giving me the conditions under which there will be outrage for discrimination (i.e., there exists a socially vocal/outspoken group that identifies with the quality being discriminated on). However, I was trying to tease out what the moral rule purported by such groups could be, since I see the "don't discriminate for how I was born" claim so often (and so forcefully put). I would suppose there should be some deep moral law being broken.
ythn 9y ago
> If someone is "simply holding different opinions" that people should have lesser rights, or be treated differently because of how they were born, then we shouldn't really be surprised that people are upset by that. It's almost like you are purposely trying to rile people up
tvanantwerp 9y ago
First, I think part of the problem is that many people assume that any disagreement is equivalent to total disagreement. That is, if you don't agree with me on arbitrary position X, you must not agree with me that we shouldn't feed babies to hippos for sport either. Vocally disagreeing with Nazis is fine. Spiraling toward "people who disagree are Nazis" isn't. Second, I work in tax policy. There is absolutely hate between many people who disagree on taxation.
belorn 9y ago
The mentality that if you are not with us then you are against us has nothing to do with "people should have lesser rights, or be treated differently". Quite the opposite. I would love to hear from some third-party voters about how they were treated by the left after the 2016 election.
- yahna 9y ago
  Well I'd say those people in Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania who voted for stein, because Hillary just wasn't good enough, deserve a "feel good about that?"
flukus 9y ago
> I'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of import taxes. I sure am. I think import taxes should be raised so that workers in the western world aren't competing in a race to the bottom with the third world. Somehow over the last few years this has come to mean that I'm a racist, uneducated redneck. The left have abandoned the working class.

jimbokun 9y ago

And here is a sterling example of the level of political discourse to which we have sunk. The post you reply to doesn't even list any specific political opinions, yet you already insinuate this person is a racist bigot. Well done.

MBCook 9y ago
GP is not insinuating that person is a racist, they're pointing out that some 'political' views are really hard to be civil about. For exactly that reason they stir up very strong feelings. I've seen strong feeling (but relatively civil discussion) about topics like handling North Korea or immigration. Things like taxes tend to be far more civil as GP pointed out. There was absolutely no need to call GP a bigot.
- Cuuugi 9y ago
  Well obviously there's far too many instances to go into great detail, but the Democratic strategy for the past few decades is to call most conservatives strategies racist. That's certainly rarely the case, and next to never the intention. All i say, and ask is that you think to yourself, is this really racist? or do i just want to vote democrat now?
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  They really don't tend to be more civil. The only reason it may seem like that in America is that the USA has never really attempted to cut its deficit. Go look at political conversation in the UK and you'll find large numbers of left wingers / liberals foaming at the mouth about how the government trying to balance its budget is the same thing as hating people, killing them, that austerity is unthinkable evil, that any solution which isn't vast taxes on the rich is evidence of a defective moral compass, etc.
  - te_chris 9y ago
    "Go look at political conversation in the UK and you'll find large numbers of left wingers / liberals foaming at the mouth about how the government trying to balance its budget is the same thing as hating people, killing them" I see you've listened closely to them and engaged with their arguments.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      You don't believe me, huh. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-hurt-but-austerity-kills https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-h... "Recessions can hurt, but austerity kills" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels-britain-murders-poor-grenfell-tower https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels... "The victims of Grenfell Tower didn’t just die. Austerity, outsourcing and deregulation killed them" https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/apr/15/knife-crime-cause-death-dare-not-speak-name-austerity-cuts-youth-funding https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/ap... "The cause of death that dare not speak its name: austerity" Politicians that aim for a balanced budget without raising taxes = murderers is an exceptionally common refrain from the extreme end of the British left. It's hard to engage with their arguments because I don't share their basic axioms, namely, that they tend to assume there are no tradeoffs in life, and in particular, they tend to assume that tax revenues can be set to more or less any level without any negative side effects. Of course, if you argued that the Guardian is no longer really representative of mainstream left-wing opinion in the UK I'd support you on that, but I pointed out the extremism of the Guardian on HN a week or so ago and got downvoted a lot ... lots of Guardian readers here I think!
      - te_chris 9y ago
        I don't get it, you don't like these articles because you find the idea that govt. negligence can actually kill people who rely on the govt. offensive?
        peoplewindow 9y ago
gipp 9y ago
> yet you already insinuate this person is a racist bigot Where on Earth did you read that into his post? He said those are the kinds of opinions that tend to elicit those responses, not anything about the OP.

staticelf 9y ago

What is harm? Lowering taxes could for example cause a lot of harm too indirectly if those taxes went to something important. I don't like religion for example and would like organized religion to be illegal in my country. If I went on TV and said this I bet this would be a very unpopular opinion and people would most likely send me tons of death threats. I think this mentality is stupid and if you are upset the correct assement is not being a child about it but actually proving me wrong by arguments and facts.

dbingham 9y ago
Well, to offer one clear example of harm, we have Nazis openly marching in the streets and arguing for racial cleansing of the US. As someone of Jewish decent, I find that pretty directly threatening. Given where those arguments have lead before -- the holocaust -- is allowing people to advocate for those viewpoints truly harmless?
- staticelf 9y ago
  Yes because then you can easily break them down by showing people that those people are scumbags. Otherwise you will only see increased support if you do not let them express their opinions.
  - dbingham 9y ago
    I would broadly agree with this approach, but it's important to recognize that many of those advocating the Antifa violent approach take that approach from a considered position having carefully studied the history of the Nazi's rise to power. We can't just ignore the fact that there is a well reasoned argument there in favor of treating certain ideas and ideology as active violent threats. It's also a real and present issue to many people in the current climate.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  I hate to call Godwin's law on this, but this argument is descending in that direction. And keep in mind, all the people who profited off that war: IBM who made the punch cards to track those interned, Ford motors who built the rail tracks for concentration camps, Ford himself who had his employees hand out anti-semetic propaganda, Prescot Bush/American Standard Oil who sold oil to both sides .. all these companies funded and benefited greatly from the results of that conflict. By focusing on the Nazis you ignore the fact that wars needs funding. Few of those who funded and profited from that conflict were ever held accountable. Modern neo-Nazis are the modern boogieman. They make us afraid, but unless they are funded, their reach is quite limited. They are loud, but easily ignored. Those who give them a voice, news and media outlets, do so to profit from the readership.

peoplewindow 9y ago

I'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of import taxes Sure you are. You see someone vote for Trump and immediately assume it must be because they're an evil, ethically flawed person who inexplicably hates love, sunshine and puppies, whereas perhaps they mostly care about taxes. You even did it in this post. Your thinking is knee jerk and shallow, and it's people like you that are causing the problems in the first place.

plandis 9y ago
How is it knee-jerk and shallow? If you voted for Trump you either directly support Trump's social policies or you don't think they were abhorrent enough to not vote for him.
- staticelf 9y ago
  Or maybe that the democratic economical policies were abhorrent enough to vote for Trump, despite his social policies?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  And everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton supported starting a war with Russia, a nuclear power? No? But that was her policy - the "no fly zone" that could only be implemented by shooting down Russian jets, or perhaps people have forgotten. In contrast Trump wanted to make peace with Russia. So maybe I can assume anyone who didn't vote Trump has a racist hatred of Russians.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- lkbm 9y ago
  I'm not pro-life, but I feel like if I thought abortion was actually murder of babies, I think I'd probably hold my nose and vote for whoever had the best chance of ending that practice. (Though, I also believe that would be Clinton--banning abortion is less viable than proving effective sex ed, and probably not hugely more effective.) Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation. (Again, I will grant that situation was going wrong without our involvement, but we're good at making things worse.) I voted for Clinton because I agree with most of her policies, and think she's immensely qualified, but I keep hearing "if you voted for Trump, that means you didn't consider his statements disqualifying" But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying. It's not absurd to consider bombing people worse than saying sexist and racist shit. It seems like a lot of Trump voters thought Trump's worst aspects were "just talk". There wasn't an option for "Clinton without the interventionism" on the ballot. Similarly, there's no "Trump without the sexism/racism" option. I will grant that most of them didn't have "Clinton bombed Libya" as their justification for their Trump vote. Abortion, though, I think is a real reason for a lot of religious people. I don't think my vote for Clinton should be taken to mean I'm okay with the positions she pushed for in North Africa and the Middle East, and that means also not declaring Trump voters were necessarily okay with his crap either.

xkvd 9y ago

> [if someone thinks people should] be treated differently because of how they were born [then outrage they face is justified] This has always piqued my curiosity -- would you mind explaining? Why is this such a deep tenet that I hear it so often as justification for shunning people? Apparently, there is something egregious about "treating people differently" because of "how they were born." What is wrong about this? Can you make this statement more concrete? How are the following "treatments" egregious? * Someone is born deaf, so his parents give him care related to his disability, which is different compared to what they would have done otherwise. * Someone was born with a great vocal range, so people encourage them to become a singer. * Someone is born with great mathematical abilities, so later in life they are top-pick by quantitative companies, which pay them extra for the value they are expected to deliver. * Someone has many insecurities and a history of nervous breakdowns and psychological damage, so we don't give them a high-stress job (for instance, the military doesn't hire them).

TeMPOraL 9y ago
It's all fine for qualities that don't get tied to your (or your group's) personal and social identity. To go over your examples - the singing case is rather clear-cut, so is the math one (barring the Tiger Mother meme). Psychological damage starts entering into "neurodiversity" sphere. And about deaf people - there are many deaf communities which don't consider this as a disability, but as a different type of experience. In fact, the right for deaf parents to purposefully create a deaf child (when normally it would have working hearing) is a topic that's sometimes discussed. It's not a very detailed explanation, but the rule of thumb is - when there's a vocal group of people who tie some quality X into their identities, talking about discriminating on X gets off-limits in the current culture.
- xkvd 9y ago
  My examples are just 4 quick things off the top of my head, there are probably many more. I also don't see your point about the deaf person (they're still treated differently -- you wouldn't talk vocally to them). I agree with your rule of thumb, but that seems like a positive description of the situation, not the normative one I'm looking for. You're giving me the conditions under which there will be outrage for discrimination (i.e., there exists a socially vocal/outspoken group that identifies with the quality being discriminated on). However, I was trying to tease out what the moral rule purported by such groups could be, since I see the "don't discriminate for how I was born" claim so often (and so forcefully put). I would suppose there should be some deep moral law being broken.

ythn 9y ago

> If someone is "simply holding different opinions" that people should have lesser rights, or be treated differently because of how they were born, then we shouldn't really be surprised that people are upset by that. It's almost like you are purposely trying to rile people up

tvanantwerp 9y ago

First, I think part of the problem is that many people assume that any disagreement is equivalent to total disagreement. That is, if you don't agree with me on arbitrary position X, you must not agree with me that we shouldn't feed babies to hippos for sport either. Vocally disagreeing with Nazis is fine. Spiraling toward "people who disagree are Nazis" isn't. Second, I work in tax policy. There is absolutely hate between many people who disagree on taxation.

belorn 9y ago

The mentality that if you are not with us then you are against us has nothing to do with "people should have lesser rights, or be treated differently". Quite the opposite. I would love to hear from some third-party voters about how they were treated by the left after the 2016 election.

yahna 9y ago
Well I'd say those people in Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania who voted for stein, because Hillary just wasn't good enough, deserve a "feel good about that?"

flukus 9y ago

> I'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of import taxes. I sure am. I think import taxes should be raised so that workers in the western world aren't competing in a race to the bottom with the third world. Somehow over the last few years this has come to mean that I'm a racist, uneducated redneck. The left have abandoned the working class.