4 ms·

I disagree with almost everything you just said. You're saying that "because X group said Y and X group also does Z, Y supports Z". Your premise is based on a

I disagree with almost everything you just said. You're saying that "because X group said Y and X group also does Z, Y supports Z". Your premise is based on a genetic fallacy, and your argument implies a false dichotomy. Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence.

joshuamorton 6y ago
I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. I don't support everything Joe Biden does, but I still throw my support behind the democratic party because there are only two realistic options in the US today, and the other one is far worse. If you're going to choose to say "All Lives Matter", you are choosing to involve yourself in a binary. And ignoring the context of that binary (that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that came about only in response to the statement/movement "Black Lives Matter") is done at one's own risk. > Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence. So you disagree that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that only came into being post-"Black Lives Matter"? Edit: On Blue Lives/ All Lives people minimizing violence against black people[0]. And Tim Scott, who is known for being an "All Lives Matter" proponent, opposes ending Qualified Immunity (and indeed his proposed bill on police reform does almost nothing). Whereas Colorado's QI-ending bill was sponsored by Leslie Herod, who joined a Black Lives Matter march. In the House, the Qualified-Immunity ending bill[1] is sponsored by only Democrats, among them many who are openly pro-Black Lives Matter, and, well Republicans don't seem to be[2]. Swallwell supports ending QI, Gaetz does not. Swallwell says Black Lives Matter. Gaetz refuses to say that, instead saying that All Lives Matter. Is that enough evidence? [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/us/all-lives-matter-reenact-george-floyd-black-lives-matter-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/us/all-lives-matter-reenact-g... [1]: congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120/cosponsors?searchResultViewType=expanded [2]: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/17/eric-swalwell-matt-gaetz-black-lives-matter-sot-keilar-nr-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/17/eric-swalwell...
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  > I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception, trying to guess which groups may choose to be offended. I guess I'm old fashioned.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception Yeah, this was never the case for large swaths of people. Truly the good days in history, where Civil Rights activists noted that, ethically, segregation was problematic. Everyone agreed and racism was solved. They didn't need to worry about offending anyone, people just understood them. Legislation followed swiftly without much kerfuffle. There was no worry about offending the sensibilities of the "white moderate" (letter from a Birmingham Jail really showing up today!) Missing the days when you didn't need to worry about how your views were perceived is itself a privilege.
    - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
      Please stop putting words in other people's mouths or implying that someone is associated with racism when they're stating their beliefs and defending those beliefs with principles. It takes a more nuanced understanding of reality to accept the fact that someone can miss certain aspects of the past while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections of the past. The freedom to express ideas - even controversial ones - is at the heart of a truly free society. A viewpoint based on sound principles can be true, while also being offensive to someone or a group of people. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong. A doctor who objectively describes how a person's weight may be detrimental to their health is stating a medical fact, even though it may be deeply offensive to the patient. To imply that taking offense (over "semantics" used by some people who express their views) is somehow equivalent to the unjust laws mentioned in Letter from Birmingham Jail is, in its own way, a mockery of what Martin Luther King Jr was fighting for. He defended free speech, even when it was offensive at the time. In our time, we speak up about our beliefs and some see them as offensive, but those freedoms should be defended all the same. Publicly shaming people based on false interpretations, and in many cases causing harm to them (as we've seen in the news recently in response to conservative viewpoints being expressed) is an obstruction of those liberties. If you disagree with someone, debate them on principle. On the other hand, if you pretend that what they're saying is invalid because someone else chooses to be offended by it, you are no longer talking about objective reality. Without a basis in objective reality, public discourse becomes nothing short of a shouting match with rules that change with the wind. We've seen an explosion of that kind of behavior recently on social media. Instead of being so adamant about picking sides and being "right", let's all listen a little more - to all viewpoints. Let's not paint someone as the devil because they disagree with us (or because we've given them a label based on other people with that viewpoint), but instead offer them a bit of respect and understand that their intentions may be just as honorable as our own, albeit colored by different circumstances and experience. I'm not going to respond again to this thread.

joshuamorton 6y ago

I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. I don't support everything Joe Biden does, but I still throw my support behind the democratic party because there are only two realistic options in the US today, and the other one is far worse. If you're going to choose to say "All Lives Matter", you are choosing to involve yourself in a binary. And ignoring the context of that binary (that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that came about only in response to the statement/movement "Black Lives Matter") is done at one's own risk. > Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence. So you disagree that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that only came into being post-"Black Lives Matter"? Edit: On Blue Lives/ All Lives people minimizing violence against black people[0]. And Tim Scott, who is known for being an "All Lives Matter" proponent, opposes ending Qualified Immunity (and indeed his proposed bill on police reform does almost nothing). Whereas Colorado's QI-ending bill was sponsored by Leslie Herod, who joined a Black Lives Matter march. In the House, the Qualified-Immunity ending bill[1] is sponsored by only Democrats, among them many who are openly pro-Black Lives Matter, and, well Republicans don't seem to be[2]. Swallwell supports ending QI, Gaetz does not. Swallwell says Black Lives Matter. Gaetz refuses to say that, instead saying that All Lives Matter. Is that enough evidence? [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/us/all-lives-matter-reenact-george-floyd-black-lives-matter-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/us/all-lives-matter-reenact-g... [1]: congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120/cosponsors?searchResultViewType=expanded [2]: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/17/eric-swalwell-matt-gaetz-black-lives-matter-sot-keilar-nr-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/17/eric-swalwell...

curiousgeorgio 6y ago
> I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception, trying to guess which groups may choose to be offended. I guess I'm old fashioned.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception Yeah, this was never the case for large swaths of people. Truly the good days in history, where Civil Rights activists noted that, ethically, segregation was problematic. Everyone agreed and racism was solved. They didn't need to worry about offending anyone, people just understood them. Legislation followed swiftly without much kerfuffle. There was no worry about offending the sensibilities of the "white moderate" (letter from a Birmingham Jail really showing up today!) Missing the days when you didn't need to worry about how your views were perceived is itself a privilege.
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    Please stop putting words in other people's mouths or implying that someone is associated with racism when they're stating their beliefs and defending those beliefs with principles. It takes a more nuanced understanding of reality to accept the fact that someone can miss certain aspects of the past while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections of the past. The freedom to express ideas - even controversial ones - is at the heart of a truly free society. A viewpoint based on sound principles can be true, while also being offensive to someone or a group of people. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong. A doctor who objectively describes how a person's weight may be detrimental to their health is stating a medical fact, even though it may be deeply offensive to the patient. To imply that taking offense (over "semantics" used by some people who express their views) is somehow equivalent to the unjust laws mentioned in Letter from Birmingham Jail is, in its own way, a mockery of what Martin Luther King Jr was fighting for. He defended free speech, even when it was offensive at the time. In our time, we speak up about our beliefs and some see them as offensive, but those freedoms should be defended all the same. Publicly shaming people based on false interpretations, and in many cases causing harm to them (as we've seen in the news recently in response to conservative viewpoints being expressed) is an obstruction of those liberties. If you disagree with someone, debate them on principle. On the other hand, if you pretend that what they're saying is invalid because someone else chooses to be offended by it, you are no longer talking about objective reality. Without a basis in objective reality, public discourse becomes nothing short of a shouting match with rules that change with the wind. We've seen an explosion of that kind of behavior recently on social media. Instead of being so adamant about picking sides and being "right", let's all listen a little more - to all viewpoints. Let's not paint someone as the devil because they disagree with us (or because we've given them a label based on other people with that viewpoint), but instead offer them a bit of respect and understand that their intentions may be just as honorable as our own, albeit colored by different circumstances and experience. I'm not going to respond again to this thread.