4 ms·
God, the moral equivocations you have to go through to get to such a puritanical humanist outcome must be quite something. 'Treat all people as people' is exac
by te_chris 9y ago
God, the moral equivocations you have to go through to get to such a puritanical humanist outcome must be quite something.
'Treat all people as people' is exactly the culture that allows these assholes to become POTUS. By not acknowledging the danger of some views you allow it to fester and, ironically, become a great threat to the safety of other humans/people.
- mhneu 9y agoIt's actually even worse than you say... It's not just that failing to acknowledge hate allows racist threats to fester. Failing to acknowledge hate allows outside groups -- whether other countries or the very wealthy -- to inflame hate to achieve their quite different goals (weaken liberal democracy, tax cuts for themselves).
- Tyrek 9y agoAnd acknowledging hate apparently allows the haters to become POTUS, and subsequently "weaken liberal democracy, tax cuts for themselves". You have to admit, that skews the calculation somewhat.
- koolba 9y agoI’d argue the danger of shutting down conversations you don’t agree with is much worse in the long run.
- heneryville 9y agoIt doesn't take any moral equivocations at all. Immanuel Kant points it out as one of 3 moral principles that are always true, regardless of conditions. [1] Once you accept a moral system that justifies no longer treating human beings as people, you've allowed yourself a system that can justify anything. Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination. That is a view to be fought, not descended to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Second_Formulation:_The_Formula_of_Humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Sec...
- mgkimsal 9y ago> Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination. Seems like those 'other' groups were generally defined by biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology, not biology, but the majority of examples I can think of that you're alluding to have to do with biology, no?
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago> biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? No. "Jewish" isn't biological, although there is some correlation, and America's red scare was soundly ideological.
- mgkimsal 9y ago"I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology" I would think that's your 'red scare' unless you're talking about something else. The "jewish" one - thinking specifically of ww2 - it definitely was more of a biological component, as "how much" you were jewish, and from what lineage, made a difference. "jewish" is both cultural and may have a racial/biological component (imu).
- heneryville 9y agoThe Cambodian genocide had a definite ideological side, as well as the repression of Kulaks [1]. I'm not sure why it's not traditionally listed as a genocide since it's effects would squarely place it somewhere in the top 5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
- pjc50 9y agoThe "cultural revolution" and Cambodia's "Year Zero" were explicitly ideological.
- zimpenfish 9y ago> Once you accept a moral system that justifies [slippery slope] Quick question: does anyone defending the racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., have any other argument than "SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!"?
- prostoalex 9y agoHow do you formalize such acknowledgements? Majority vote? Appointed thought leaders?