4 ms·

> He should've been kicked off long ago, but I fear that having this particular example be the "final straw" is only going to strengthen the alt-right's persecu

> He should've been kicked off long ago, but I fear that having this particular example be the "final straw" is only going to strengthen the alt-right's persecution complex. He is quite correct in the assessment that he's being persecuted on ideological grounds, unless he says "by the government". Why would you deny that ? And let's face facts here. If you held an alt-right viewpoint in San Francisco ... would you tell your employer ? Would you tell your friends ? Would you tell a police agent ? Would you tell city hall ? Because I'd sure be afraid as hell to tell anyone. Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened. They, of course, will not change their opinion or their vote, and will give more power if this movement does grow to the point they can get enough politicians elected. The really sad part is that it really looks to me like neither Damore nor Eich had an alt-right worldview when they got screwed, but ... let me ask you ... if they held one now, because of what happened to them, would you find that surprising ? Would you blame them ? I wouldn't. So let's just say that I REALLY think this is the wrong tactic. Engaging with them is the only way things might happen. That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults. Yep. Absolutely. Censorship, aside from being an act of desperation, mostly strengthens the hand of the people being censored, and convinces new people that what is being censored is true. I mean, just the act of censorship by itself does that. Plus, it won't stop them, Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically. This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. Or at least, he has a lot more arguments against those. Let's face facts here. These bans, takedowns, ... they make most of us feel better. They make the situation worse, but they make us feel better. That by itself is dangerous as hell.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened." I find it incredible how many people are more upset that those two got called out for their crappy views, and don't care at all what the actions of those two meant to the groups they targeted. Suppose you were a gay person working at Mozilla. How would you feel if you found out that your boss thought that you were not deserving of basic human rights? "Would you blame them ?" Yes, I absolutely would. Because they're adults, fully capable of taking responsibility for their own actions. "Engaging with them is the only way things might happen." No, it isn't. Because they do not engage in good faith. They do not debate in good faith. "That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults" The fact that you refer to what they're saying as merely "insults" says a lot. They are questioning the very right of these people to exist. They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public. They are questioning the idea that these people are entitled to basic human dignity. That is not just an insult to be sustained. "Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically." Then they don't need the megaphone of Twitter. "This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. " This is directly contrary to your previous point, which was that they still have their own websites to get their message out.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > They are questioning the very right of these people to exist. > They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public Can you provide evidence that Damore or Eich were questioning the right of certain groups to exist? Are you seriously going to claim Damore was saying women don’t have the right to exist?
- bachbach 8y ago
  It is no good appealing to human rights - because human rights are the subject of great controversy and debate between Enlightenment scholars themselves. I am tired of people using 'human rights' as a flag for moral uprightness. There are good arguments against human rights from all parts of the political spectrum. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-agains... That's right, an argument against the received wisdom on human rights from the Guardian.
- candiodari 8y ago
  I would like to reply that both your assumptions are wrong. 1) a state has the right to deny marriage on any grounds other than religion, race or nationality. So a state has the right to impose conditions on marriage that have to do with gender. Hell, the treaty almost says that a state has to impose some limits (without specifying what those limits are) Article 16 UDHR (paragraph 3) 2) You DO NOT have the right to treat either adult different because of their political opinion EVEN IF IT DID VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS. Article 1 and 2 UDHR So not only did both of these individuals not violate human rights, you did.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened." I find it incredible how many people are more upset that those two got called out for their crappy views, and don't care at all what the actions of those two meant to the groups they targeted. Suppose you were a gay person working at Mozilla. How would you feel if you found out that your boss thought that you were not deserving of basic human rights? "Would you blame them ?" Yes, I absolutely would. Because they're adults, fully capable of taking responsibility for their own actions. "Engaging with them is the only way things might happen." No, it isn't. Because they do not engage in good faith. They do not debate in good faith. "That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults" The fact that you refer to what they're saying as merely "insults" says a lot. They are questioning the very right of these people to exist. They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public. They are questioning the idea that these people are entitled to basic human dignity. That is not just an insult to be sustained. "Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically." Then they don't need the megaphone of Twitter. "This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. " This is directly contrary to your previous point, which was that they still have their own websites to get their message out.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> They are questioning the very right of these people to exist. > They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public Can you provide evidence that Damore or Eich were questioning the right of certain groups to exist? Are you seriously going to claim Damore was saying women don’t have the right to exist?
bachbach 8y ago
It is no good appealing to human rights - because human rights are the subject of great controversy and debate between Enlightenment scholars themselves. I am tired of people using 'human rights' as a flag for moral uprightness. There are good arguments against human rights from all parts of the political spectrum. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-agains... That's right, an argument against the received wisdom on human rights from the Guardian.
candiodari 8y ago
I would like to reply that both your assumptions are wrong. 1) a state has the right to deny marriage on any grounds other than religion, race or nationality. So a state has the right to impose conditions on marriage that have to do with gender. Hell, the treaty almost says that a state has to impose some limits (without specifying what those limits are) Article 16 UDHR (paragraph 3) 2) You DO NOT have the right to treat either adult different because of their political opinion EVEN IF IT DID VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS. Article 1 and 2 UDHR So not only did both of these individuals not violate human rights, you did.