4 ms·

The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of th

by i386 7y ago

The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other. They are not morally equivalent positions. Stop treating them that way.

gdhbcc 7y ago
Expect they are morally equivalent because morality is relative and individual.
umvi 7y ago
"Safety" comes at the expense of freedoms, such as the freedom to read the shooter's manifesto. Whether or not you think the freedom/safety it is worth the trade off is you opinion, but you can't deny it's one step closer to total authoritarianism. I've personally read a few shooter manifestos, including "My Twisted World", and don't see why it's a big deal to do so. I found it to be a fascinating insight into a world of mental illness I would never have imagined.
balfirevic 7y ago
Can you please explain what positions do you think are being treated as equivalent in the parent comment?
kryogen1c 7y ago
> The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other. You want to believe this is black and white, but its not. There is no more blurry line in existence. Actively promoting murder? Eliminate free speech for that, threw em in jail. But what about promoting violence? Violent protests? What about rape, is that worthy of eliminating free speech? What if a high schooler is bullied and then commits suicide? What about microaggressions that make people feel uncomfortable and like they may be in danger? What about people born without advantages that change their chances of "success" from 60% to 10%? Are you actively promoting death and suffering by purposefully ignoring the homeless people you walk by?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
homonculus1 7y ago
I don't think your parent was making any such moral equivocation. Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon. They may not even realize that if they had their way on every issue it would amount to an authoritarian regime. To put it differently, how many people are actually championing individual rights for every issue?
- NedIsakoff 7y ago
  "Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon." -- This is expressing my ideas better then what I wrote. Although from their point of view it may not be terrible.

by i386 7y ago

gdhbcc 7y ago

Expect they are morally equivalent because morality is relative and individual.

umvi 7y ago

"Safety" comes at the expense of freedoms, such as the freedom to read the shooter's manifesto. Whether or not you think the freedom/safety it is worth the trade off is you opinion, but you can't deny it's one step closer to total authoritarianism. I've personally read a few shooter manifestos, including "My Twisted World", and don't see why it's a big deal to do so. I found it to be a fascinating insight into a world of mental illness I would never have imagined.

balfirevic 7y ago

Can you please explain what positions do you think are being treated as equivalent in the parent comment?

kryogen1c 7y ago

> The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other. You want to believe this is black and white, but its not. There is no more blurry line in existence. Actively promoting murder? Eliminate free speech for that, threw em in jail. But what about promoting violence? Violent protests? What about rape, is that worthy of eliminating free speech? What if a high schooler is bullied and then commits suicide? What about microaggressions that make people feel uncomfortable and like they may be in danger? What about people born without advantages that change their chances of "success" from 60% to 10%? Are you actively promoting death and suffering by purposefully ignoring the homeless people you walk by?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

homonculus1 7y ago

I don't think your parent was making any such moral equivocation. Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon. They may not even realize that if they had their way on every issue it would amount to an authoritarian regime. To put it differently, how many people are actually championing individual rights for every issue?

NedIsakoff 7y ago
"Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon." -- This is expressing my ideas better then what I wrote. Although from their point of view it may not be terrible.