3 ms·

I find it troubling that views based deeply in religious beliefs (gay people are unnatural and somehow should be sidelined for their differences makes sense onl

by nstart 9y ago

I find it troubling that views based deeply in religious beliefs (gay people are unnatural and somehow should be sidelined for their differences makes sense only inside of a highly religious context) or just pure unscientific opinion are somehow being taken as a political view. Back in the days, skin colour was a political view. That was a dumb idea. And the effects of that is still felt up to today. These days sexual orientation and climate change are political views. This isn't ok. And we shouldn't treat it as such. Bigotry and un-science don't deserve a seat as a "reasonable voice" at the table of progress no matter who you are.

refurb 9y ago
Why not let ideas be judged on their own merit, rather than pre-judged and banned from conversation? Everyone likes to use examples like racial differences as an example. How about something more gray? Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Or is that another one of those ideas that "don't deserve a seat at the table"?
- nstart 9y ago
  > Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Absolutely. Few things to note here: 1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion with a large amount of studies done from the perspectives of science, economics, and even ethics and philosophy. Taking a stance in it is a political stance and that conversation is crucial to progress. 2. That said, it's not a valid comparison to what was actually being mentioned in my comment which was religious or non scientific views getting a free pass to masquerade as political stances. Those were the ones I said that don't deserve a seat at the table 3. To expand on the discussion of what's valid to be at the table though, immigration is a valid topic. "No people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to immigrate because they are bad people" is not a political stance. That's a baseless bigoted view that pretends to be a political stance. That can be shown out of the room. 4. One last thing on above. There are close but grey line topics related to the above statements that should be part of discourse. Eg - people from certain areas of the world have a higher risk of being radicalized than others prior to immigration. Statistically provable. Good science. Worthy of discussion. Making the outcome of that "ban everyone of the given ethnicity from that area" though is the kind of discussion we really need to stop these days.

by nstart 9y ago

refurb 9y ago

Why not let ideas be judged on their own merit, rather than pre-judged and banned from conversation? Everyone likes to use examples like racial differences as an example. How about something more gray? Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Or is that another one of those ideas that "don't deserve a seat at the table"?

nstart 9y ago
> Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Absolutely. Few things to note here: 1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion with a large amount of studies done from the perspectives of science, economics, and even ethics and philosophy. Taking a stance in it is a political stance and that conversation is crucial to progress. 2. That said, it's not a valid comparison to what was actually being mentioned in my comment which was religious or non scientific views getting a free pass to masquerade as political stances. Those were the ones I said that don't deserve a seat at the table 3. To expand on the discussion of what's valid to be at the table though, immigration is a valid topic. "No people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to immigrate because they are bad people" is not a political stance. That's a baseless bigoted view that pretends to be a political stance. That can be shown out of the room. 4. One last thing on above. There are close but grey line topics related to the above statements that should be part of discourse. Eg - people from certain areas of the world have a higher risk of being radicalized than others prior to immigration. Statistically provable. Good science. Worthy of discussion. Making the outcome of that "ban everyone of the given ethnicity from that area" though is the kind of discussion we really need to stop these days.