4 ms·

"I am friends with a Nazi" != "I am a Nazi" I'm not sure what more to say, this seems axiomatic. If I'm friends with a vegan it doesn't mean I'm a vegan or sup

"I am friends with a Nazi" != "I am a Nazi" I'm not sure what more to say, this seems axiomatic. If I'm friends with a vegan it doesn't mean I'm a vegan or support veganism. We don't all excommunicate our racist uncle from thanksgiving, etc. I guess though you're just arguing for the sake of it, since the whole point of the article is you have to be friends and tolerant of bad people to help those people improve... thereby reducing the number of bad people.

danso 9y ago
You don't find much difference between the neo-Nazism movement and veganism? Or from your racist uncle and the guy who is one of the Internet's most famous neo-Nazi and helps run the Daily Stormer?
- lostmsu 9y ago
  Qualitatively - no. Quantatively - maybe, but I fail to see where do you draw the line.
  - danso 9y ago
    Where do we draw the line between anything, if we can't differentiate between a group that actively wants to enact genocide on humans, and a group that is against (animal) meat consumption?
acdha 9y ago
Your first sentence is a claim I wasn’t making. “friend” implies more that just knowing someone – there’s some common cause, attraction, etc. which separates friends from mere acquaintances. Maybe she used the word incorrectly but it really reads like she treats this as something like an unpopular political view or that obnoxious proselytizing vegan who keeps trying to convert people at Thanksgiving. This is consistent with her pattern of defending and minimizing weev: he’s not a neo-Nazi, just a troll; he’s just an asshole; he’s no hero but many of our heroes wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny either; etc. People who know people with offensive views tend not to do that. They might still talk to someone, especially family, but they don’t defend that person’s beliefs. That racist uncle might not be completely banned but he’s told not to say anything, etc. Your comparison to vegans is interesting because of how poorly it fits: vegans do not go around calling for violence against other people. Vegans don’t say that entire races or religions should be exterminated. Most of the vegans I know don’t even try to push their beliefs on others – they may talk about it if you want but, being decent people, they’re not going to walk around shouting “meat is murder” at you. That seems several levels below a guy who hounds people offline (remember Norton soft-peddling her friends attacking Kathy Sierra?) and has a swastika tatto with the beliefs to back it up.
danso 9y ago
> since the whole point of the article is you have to be friends and tolerant of bad people to help those people improve This is the point that I (and I think many others of her critics) disagree with. She claims that isolation/intolerance is untenable, and thus assumes that engagement must be a net positive by comparison. She doesn't consider that engagement could also turn out badly, e.g. how an abused spouse tries in vain to keep a relationship together, nor the unintended consequences of enabling/normalization. What baffles me is her insistence that isolation/intolerance doesn't work at all. I'm not talking about how the civilized world was "intolerant" of the Nazis by fighting WW2, I mean how the status quo, including education, is to not treat racism/Nazism as acceptable systems of belief. Yes, it's true that people still end up being racist. But how is it that the generations of children/young adults today are far, far more racially/diversity tolerant than the folks who grew up in the 40s/50s? Genetics?

danso 9y ago

You don't find much difference between the neo-Nazism movement and veganism? Or from your racist uncle and the guy who is one of the Internet's most famous neo-Nazi and helps run the Daily Stormer?

lostmsu 9y ago
Qualitatively - no. Quantatively - maybe, but I fail to see where do you draw the line.
- danso 9y ago
  Where do we draw the line between anything, if we can't differentiate between a group that actively wants to enact genocide on humans, and a group that is against (animal) meat consumption?

acdha 9y ago

Your first sentence is a claim I wasn’t making. “friend” implies more that just knowing someone – there’s some common cause, attraction, etc. which separates friends from mere acquaintances. Maybe she used the word incorrectly but it really reads like she treats this as something like an unpopular political view or that obnoxious proselytizing vegan who keeps trying to convert people at Thanksgiving. This is consistent with her pattern of defending and minimizing weev: he’s not a neo-Nazi, just a troll; he’s just an asshole; he’s no hero but many of our heroes wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny either; etc. People who know people with offensive views tend not to do that. They might still talk to someone, especially family, but they don’t defend that person’s beliefs. That racist uncle might not be completely banned but he’s told not to say anything, etc. Your comparison to vegans is interesting because of how poorly it fits: vegans do not go around calling for violence against other people. Vegans don’t say that entire races or religions should be exterminated. Most of the vegans I know don’t even try to push their beliefs on others – they may talk about it if you want but, being decent people, they’re not going to walk around shouting “meat is murder” at you. That seems several levels below a guy who hounds people offline (remember Norton soft-peddling her friends attacking Kathy Sierra?) and has a swastika tatto with the beliefs to back it up.

danso 9y ago

> since the whole point of the article is you have to be friends and tolerant of bad people to help those people improve This is the point that I (and I think many others of her critics) disagree with. She claims that isolation/intolerance is untenable, and thus assumes that engagement must be a net positive by comparison. She doesn't consider that engagement could also turn out badly, e.g. how an abused spouse tries in vain to keep a relationship together, nor the unintended consequences of enabling/normalization. What baffles me is her insistence that isolation/intolerance doesn't work at all. I'm not talking about how the civilized world was "intolerant" of the Nazis by fighting WW2, I mean how the status quo, including education, is to not treat racism/Nazism as acceptable systems of belief. Yes, it's true that people still end up being racist. But how is it that the generations of children/young adults today are far, far more racially/diversity tolerant than the folks who grew up in the 40s/50s? Genetics?