3 ms·

> the racists and white supremacists take over because the only thing anyone is allowed to do to stop them is to politely and civilly debate them. There are 30

• krapp 6y ago
  >So you're saying they are just sheep and do things blindly? No. Not only did I not say that, there's no reasonable way to infer that from my comment, and your doing so demonstrates an unwillingness on your part to argue in good faith. That people are influenced by more than purely logical, didactic arguments should be self evident, nor does that fact make people sheep, it's simply human nature. We're not compilers, after all, we're primates with countless irrational biases hard wired into our brains. Anti-vaxxers, COVID-denialists, flat-earthers, conspiracy theorists of all stripes, the resurgence of discredited white supremacist and anti-semitic ideology under the politically correct guise of "racial realism" and the phenomenon of fake news spread by social media should be enough to demonstrate that falsehood can be more compelling than fact, and that facts alone are not sufficient to dissuade such people from their false beliefs, or stop their influence. >The real changes, the ones that lasted generations, the things that made America truly great, were done because free speech convinced people to change their minds. No they weren't. They were accomplished with speech and consequence, often long, violent, ugly protests and frequently civil unrest. America has only ever granted its inalienable rights to white Christian men by default - everyone else has had to fight tooth and nail for their seat at the table and for every scrap of human dignity they could take from the cornucopia of American liberty. Women's suffrage was earned with speech and blood. African American rights were earned with speech and blood. LGBT rights were earned with speech and blood. Even recently, few outside of the black community really cared about systemic racist violence among the police, despite the black community speaking at length about it for years until they also started taking to the streets and burning shit down... then suddenly everyone else noticed and started listening. Speech without the force of consequence is as useless as a toothless guard dog.
  • jcims 6y ago
    >No. Not only did I not say that, there's no reasonable way to infer that from my comment, and your doing so demonstrates an unwillingness on your part to argue in good faith. It's quite straightforward to draw this conclusion from the following portion of your previous comment: >Unfortunately, in your world, the racists and white supremacists take over How does a community 'take over' without expanding to at least a dominant minority? And how does the point being argued, allowing them to speak freely, enable that unless we're to assume that simply being exposed to that worldview will grow their ranks?
  • bb88 6y ago
    > ... your doing so demonstrates an unwillingness on your part to argue in good faith. You argued: A: Unfortunately, in your world, the racists and white supremacists take over That presupposes this: B: In a democracy a majority of the people have to agree that white supremacy should be the dominant principle for governmental rule. I was pointing out that in order for A to happen, B must happen as well -- but in a rhetorical way to deeply undermine your argument. I assure you, it was completely in good faith. You probably just didn't like the result of it. > No they weren't. They were accomplished with speech and consequence, often long, violent, ugly protests and frequently civil unrest. Rosa Parks didn't throw a brick through a window. She refused to sit in the back of the bus. That started a boycott of the bus system, and it worked without bloodshed. Sure blood was spilled in the civil rights marches but not because the people marching wanted it to be.
    • non-entity 6y ago
      From what I've read just today on HN, many would likely argue that this was not a peaceful protest because perhaps it inconvenienced others on the bus. Should've just shut up and followed orders.
      • bb88 6y ago
        Might as well just say that Gandhi was a thug because he inconvenienced British rule of India through his non-violent tactics.