3 ms·

I don't get it: if someone's ideas are so universally considered horrific and dangerous, why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? The state

by Udik 6y ago

I don't get it: if someone's ideas are so universally considered horrific and dangerous, why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? The state defines a frame of things that are lawful and that every citizen should be able to perform in perfect safety. If you think that the laws of your country are not sufficient, then seek to change them; instead you seem to advocate for vigilante justice in the absence of shared and agreed upon rules.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
Because of freedom of speech? The idea is that the state should not generally be in the business of determine what political speech should be legal, lest it always turn out that only the speech the benefits the powers that be, be allowed to remains standing. Do you seriously not see the difference between, "this opinion should not get you thrown in jail" and "this opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power"?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  If you think that the opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power, vote against that candidate. But if enough others vote for that candidate, then that's a strong democratic signal that this opinion reflects many people's will and needs consideration and representation. In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions, no matter how much you dislike these opinions (it's plausible that they dislike your opinions just as much) and you should not get a veto to say that their opinions don't belong to someone in a position of power but your opinion can do so; people have the right to have their opinions represented in politics. Fringe opinions deserve only trivial representation and that's what they get, but this article is about various mainstream opinions held by as much as 62% of people, it's obvious that most of these opinions should be allowed to belong to someone in a position of power.
  - baddox 6y ago
    > In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions I think that this is not true and that society and individuals can and should reserve the right to suppress intolerant ideologies.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; e.g. Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. You won't succeed in claims that your ideology is special and deserves protection that the opponents' ideology does not - that hypocrisy simply won't be accepted by everyone who doesn't already share your ideology. Your enemies have similar motivations as you do, they consider your political agenda as harmful and dangerous to society where it would be morally justified to ensure that the politions of power are cleansed from (for example) the liberal agenda. A line in the sand of "we won't harass people because of their political views" generally works as protection against oppression, even if you have to include oppressive political views as well in that basket. In essence, the choice in this matter is simply about escalation or living side by side with your political enemies by agreeing to specify where "the battlefield" is - IMHO, ideally, limited to debates and votes by elected representatives and discourse in media and social circles. If it's escalated to "let's fight our enemies" in the field of employment or providing services then it's not as bad as street fights (which were used in political 'discourse' a hundred years ago) but still going to lead to a lot of people harmed on both sides.
      - baddox 6y ago
        > What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; All modes of justification can be invoked fraudulently. This does not invalidate my mode of justification any more than it invalidates very basic uncontroversial modes of justification such as "we should reserve the right to use force to suppress murder." Sure, those in power can and do invoke that mode of justification fraudulently by falsely claiming that people are murderers and thus using violence against them. We do not throw up our hands and say "well, we cannot ever use that mode of justification, because who can really say for sure what is and isn't murder?" > Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. Just like my even simpler example above, this is not a problem for my argument. I can and do claim two things: that we are justified using violence to suppress intolerance, and that it's bad when people use violence to suppress things that they falsely claim are intolerance.
- Udik 6y ago
  > The idea is that the state should not generally be in the business of determine what political speech should be legal I understand, but how can the same state allow mobs and employers to harass people and sometimes destroy their lives because they do what the state allows? The state doesn't just declare freedoms, it protects them. For example, if the state doesn't throw you in jail for your opinions, can someone else do it without the state intervening? > Do you seriously not see the difference between, "this opinion should not get you thrown in jail" and "this opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power"? I see that the first statement comes from the state and it is valid for everyone; the second is subjective and is made by a group of people who have taken on themselves the role of judge, jury and executioner. Granted, it's a statement that is in your right to make; but if you act on it you can become responsible of harassment, stalking, mobbing.
baddox 6y ago
> why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? What do you mean? Who among us gets to decide who is allowed on the ballot?

by Udik 6y ago

TulliusCicero 6y ago

Because of freedom of speech? The idea is that the state should not generally be in the business of determine what political speech should be legal, lest it always turn out that only the speech the benefits the powers that be, be allowed to remains standing. Do you seriously not see the difference between, "this opinion should not get you thrown in jail" and "this opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power"?

PeterisP 6y ago
If you think that the opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power, vote against that candidate. But if enough others vote for that candidate, then that's a strong democratic signal that this opinion reflects many people's will and needs consideration and representation. In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions, no matter how much you dislike these opinions (it's plausible that they dislike your opinions just as much) and you should not get a veto to say that their opinions don't belong to someone in a position of power but your opinion can do so; people have the right to have their opinions represented in politics. Fringe opinions deserve only trivial representation and that's what they get, but this article is about various mainstream opinions held by as much as 62% of people, it's obvious that most of these opinions should be allowed to belong to someone in a position of power.
- baddox 6y ago
  > In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions I think that this is not true and that society and individuals can and should reserve the right to suppress intolerant ideologies.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; e.g. Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. You won't succeed in claims that your ideology is special and deserves protection that the opponents' ideology does not - that hypocrisy simply won't be accepted by everyone who doesn't already share your ideology. Your enemies have similar motivations as you do, they consider your political agenda as harmful and dangerous to society where it would be morally justified to ensure that the politions of power are cleansed from (for example) the liberal agenda. A line in the sand of "we won't harass people because of their political views" generally works as protection against oppression, even if you have to include oppressive political views as well in that basket. In essence, the choice in this matter is simply about escalation or living side by side with your political enemies by agreeing to specify where "the battlefield" is - IMHO, ideally, limited to debates and votes by elected representatives and discourse in media and social circles. If it's escalated to "let's fight our enemies" in the field of employment or providing services then it's not as bad as street fights (which were used in political 'discourse' a hundred years ago) but still going to lead to a lot of people harmed on both sides.
    - baddox 6y ago
      > What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; All modes of justification can be invoked fraudulently. This does not invalidate my mode of justification any more than it invalidates very basic uncontroversial modes of justification such as "we should reserve the right to use force to suppress murder." Sure, those in power can and do invoke that mode of justification fraudulently by falsely claiming that people are murderers and thus using violence against them. We do not throw up our hands and say "well, we cannot ever use that mode of justification, because who can really say for sure what is and isn't murder?" > Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. Just like my even simpler example above, this is not a problem for my argument. I can and do claim two things: that we are justified using violence to suppress intolerance, and that it's bad when people use violence to suppress things that they falsely claim are intolerance.
Udik 6y ago
> The idea is that the state should not generally be in the business of determine what political speech should be legal I understand, but how can the same state allow mobs and employers to harass people and sometimes destroy their lives because they do what the state allows? The state doesn't just declare freedoms, it protects them. For example, if the state doesn't throw you in jail for your opinions, can someone else do it without the state intervening? > Do you seriously not see the difference between, "this opinion should not get you thrown in jail" and "this opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power"? I see that the first statement comes from the state and it is valid for everyone; the second is subjective and is made by a group of people who have taken on themselves the role of judge, jury and executioner. Granted, it's a statement that is in your right to make; but if you act on it you can become responsible of harassment, stalking, mobbing.

baddox 6y ago

> why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? What do you mean? Who among us gets to decide who is allowed on the ballot?