3 ms·

That's the thing though, you're calling someone being forced out because they hold a bigoted position 'lynching'. You're equivocating what has historically been

That's the thing though, you're calling someone being forced out because they hold a bigoted position 'lynching'. You're equivocating what has historically been an act of racially provoked murder with the removal of a bigot - there's no justice to be found there. Political opponents ought to (and are, in most cases) barred from effectively participating in the political process when they hold oppressive and bigoted view points.

explainplease 9y ago
> That's the thing though, you're calling someone being forced out because they hold a bigoted position 'lynching'. Yes, because in both cases, it's a large group of people reacting emotionally as a group to harm another person. > You're equivocating what has historically been an act of racially provoked murder with the removal of a bigot No I'm not. It's an analogy, not an equivocation. You need to stop using the word "bigot" over and over again. You're framing everything as matter of bigot/not-a-bigot. It's tribal, caveman thinking. "Me not a bigot, they bigot. They bad." > Political opponents ought to (and are, in most cases) barred from effectively participating in the political process when they hold oppressive and bigoted view points. That is literally authoritarianism and oppression. 200 years ago, blacks were barred. 100 years ago, women were barred. Today, "bigots" are barred. Keep this up, and someday, you will be barred. There are only two options here: a) You think you are morally superior to everyone else in the world, therefore everyone who disagrees with you should be barred from participating in the political process. You are therefore a fascistic authoritarian. b) You are unable to reason abstractly, because you are unable to understand how your reasoning applies against your own position.

3 ms·

That's the thing though, you're calling someone being forced out because they hold a bigoted position 'lynching'. You're equivocating what has historically been

by yttrium 9y ago

explainplease 9y ago
> That's the thing though, you're calling someone being forced out because they hold a bigoted position 'lynching'. Yes, because in both cases, it's a large group of people reacting emotionally as a group to harm another person. > You're equivocating what has historically been an act of racially provoked murder with the removal of a bigot No I'm not. It's an analogy, not an equivocation. You need to stop using the word "bigot" over and over again. You're framing everything as matter of bigot/not-a-bigot. It's tribal, caveman thinking. "Me not a bigot, they bigot. They bad." > Political opponents ought to (and are, in most cases) barred from effectively participating in the political process when they hold oppressive and bigoted view points. That is literally authoritarianism and oppression. 200 years ago, blacks were barred. 100 years ago, women were barred. Today, "bigots" are barred. Keep this up, and someday, you will be barred. There are only two options here: a) You think you are morally superior to everyone else in the world, therefore everyone who disagrees with you should be barred from participating in the political process. You are therefore a fascistic authoritarian. b) You are unable to reason abstractly, because you are unable to understand how your reasoning applies against your own position.