3 ms·
> I routinely see arguments of the type "Argument X is likely to increase prejudice against Trans/BIPOC/Undocumented people, which will lead to more of them bei
by baddox 6y ago
> I routinely see arguments of the type "Argument X is likely to increase prejudice against Trans/BIPOC/Undocumented people, which will lead to more of them being murdered" used against completely mainstream conservative arguments.
So what? Are you saying those arguments aren't true? If so, of course you should make that counter-argument.
Or are you saying that even if they are true, it's more important to protect "mainstream conservative arguments" than to protect those people from prejudice?
- BurningFrog 6y agoTo recap, I claimed: > You can always construct a credible argument for how any statement is "encouraging sentiment that does lead to real world violence and other harms" People disagreed, so I gave these examples.
- baddox 6y agoAnd I’m wondering what your response to those examples would be.
- BurningFrog 6y agoI think that an counterargument that can be made against any argument obviously proves too much and has to be ignored. The alternative is that we accept that all arguments cause murder and must be banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much