4 ms·

The manifesto states "There’s only going to be one core rule in the group, and it’s that if you attack a person’s character, rather than their ideas, you will b

The manifesto states "There’s only going to be one core rule in the group, and it’s that if you attack a person’s character, rather than their ideas, you will be banned." People whose ideas are on the wrong side of ethical will often say this sort of thing- as though the two things, a person's character and their ideas, are somehow not connected. I'm not sure where they get the idea that the ideas they support indicate a lot about their character, and they will be judged accordingly.

bug_05992 8y ago
> as though the two things, a person's character and their ideas, are somehow not connected. I somewhat agree with you that the character of a person can be inferred by the ideals they claim to hold. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, given the context of the worldview held by the speaker, you can infer positions that person might take on other issues of the day. Understanding the worldview of the speaker is incredibly important when making character calls. I've found that people will attempt to reveal their character to you in subtle ways, often in an attempt to see what positions you claim to hold in response. The ideals they claim to hold often mean very different things for their character depending on their worldview. Example: I've found that when interacting with people who have grown up in black culture, when they make a statement against the ownership of guns, they're actually signaling to you that they don't believe in the unjust use of violence. In white culture, revealing a pro-gun stance says more about their belief in the role of the individual in relation to the government. Confusing one for the other will result in a very unproductive conversation. People tend to interpret other's words outside of the context of the speaker's actual worldview. My understanding is that this is the problem that 'attacking the person's ideas, rather than their character' tries to solve. Full disclaimer, I grew up in a very conservative circle(The kind that didn't vote for, and generally has a strong distaste for Trump), and as a result I have a very good understanding for how their ideas tend to be generated. I can say with confidence that many of these people have outstanding moral character, but would also be condemned by those in more liberal circles.(Granted, the conservatives I know are absolutely guilty of the reverse)
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
But the problem is, those whose ideas are on the wrong side of ethical will also often attack those on the right side, saying that their ideas are "wrong", and that those "wrong" ideas are a reflection of their "bad" character, and that therefore such people should be shunned. Unless you've got an objective meter to say which side is the "good" and which is the "bad" (and which will be so 50 years from now), be very careful about allowing people to shut down the other side.
ryanmarsh 8y ago
Purely from an energy conservation perspective, taking character into account when assessing the usefulness of an idea can save you quite a bit of trouble in life.
Veelox 8y ago
Also in the memo he stats >Your colleagues are afraid because they know that they — not their ideas — will be attacked. They know that all the talk of “openness to different perspectives” does not apply to causes of “social justice,” immigration, “diversity”, and “equality.” On this issues, you can either keep quiet or sacrifice your reputation and career. You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the US should work to ensure no one crosses our southern border without permission.
- ndespres 8y ago
  >You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the US should work to ensure no one crosses our southern border without permission. I would ask anyone who believes that the US should work to to control entry at the southern border to question why they believe this is an important thing to focus on. What is the root of that belief? Why should the US be exclusive? What benefit do you derive from keeping it exclusive, and why is the accident of your birth somehow firmer ground of entitlement to citizenship than any other abstract concept? Perhaps they are not "a racist" but I strongly believe that the desire to control the border is deeply rooted in racism in America, and anyone having this discussion needs to be willing to consider the basis for their ideas.
  - rmc 8y ago
    Also interesting that they refer to the southern border. Is there something different about the northern border? Different type of people, perhaps???
  - Veelox 8y ago
    Lol. Do you have no self awareness? In a post, where it talks about trying to be more open to conservative viewpoints, you imply that the default reason to support border security is racism? This is exactly the line of thinking that causes people elsewhere in the thread to comment that they rarely meet conservatives. If someone is in an environment where they have to argue just to prove they are not racist, why bother?

bug_05992 8y ago

> as though the two things, a person's character and their ideas, are somehow not connected. I somewhat agree with you that the character of a person can be inferred by the ideals they claim to hold. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, given the context of the worldview held by the speaker, you can infer positions that person might take on other issues of the day. Understanding the worldview of the speaker is incredibly important when making character calls. I've found that people will attempt to reveal their character to you in subtle ways, often in an attempt to see what positions you claim to hold in response. The ideals they claim to hold often mean very different things for their character depending on their worldview. Example: I've found that when interacting with people who have grown up in black culture, when they make a statement against the ownership of guns, they're actually signaling to you that they don't believe in the unjust use of violence. In white culture, revealing a pro-gun stance says more about their belief in the role of the individual in relation to the government. Confusing one for the other will result in a very unproductive conversation. People tend to interpret other's words outside of the context of the speaker's actual worldview. My understanding is that this is the problem that 'attacking the person's ideas, rather than their character' tries to solve. Full disclaimer, I grew up in a very conservative circle(The kind that didn't vote for, and generally has a strong distaste for Trump), and as a result I have a very good understanding for how their ideas tend to be generated. I can say with confidence that many of these people have outstanding moral character, but would also be condemned by those in more liberal circles.(Granted, the conservatives I know are absolutely guilty of the reverse)

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

But the problem is, those whose ideas are on the wrong side of ethical will also often attack those on the right side, saying that their ideas are "wrong", and that those "wrong" ideas are a reflection of their "bad" character, and that therefore such people should be shunned. Unless you've got an objective meter to say which side is the "good" and which is the "bad" (and which will be so 50 years from now), be very careful about allowing people to shut down the other side.

ryanmarsh 8y ago

Purely from an energy conservation perspective, taking character into account when assessing the usefulness of an idea can save you quite a bit of trouble in life.

Veelox 8y ago

Also in the memo he stats >Your colleagues are afraid because they know that they — not their ideas — will be attacked. They know that all the talk of “openness to different perspectives” does not apply to causes of “social justice,” immigration, “diversity”, and “equality.” On this issues, you can either keep quiet or sacrifice your reputation and career. You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the US should work to ensure no one crosses our southern border without permission.

ndespres 8y ago
>You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the US should work to ensure no one crosses our southern border without permission. I would ask anyone who believes that the US should work to to control entry at the southern border to question why they believe this is an important thing to focus on. What is the root of that belief? Why should the US be exclusive? What benefit do you derive from keeping it exclusive, and why is the accident of your birth somehow firmer ground of entitlement to citizenship than any other abstract concept? Perhaps they are not "a racist" but I strongly believe that the desire to control the border is deeply rooted in racism in America, and anyone having this discussion needs to be willing to consider the basis for their ideas.
- rmc 8y ago
  Also interesting that they refer to the southern border. Is there something different about the northern border? Different type of people, perhaps???
- Veelox 8y ago
  Lol. Do you have no self awareness? In a post, where it talks about trying to be more open to conservative viewpoints, you imply that the default reason to support border security is racism? This is exactly the line of thinking that causes people elsewhere in the thread to comment that they rarely meet conservatives. If someone is in an environment where they have to argue just to prove they are not racist, why bother?