3 ms·

> This is just hate spewing, plain and straight. Hate is an emotion, it is subjective. You might feel hate when you see or hear something, but it is not an int

> This is just hate spewing, plain and straight. Hate is an emotion, it is subjective. You might feel hate when you see or hear something, but it is not an intrinsic, objective quality of other people's words. Without using these emotional trigger words, do you think the citizens of a country should be able to decide who visits them in their country?

systemvoltage 6y ago
The point wasn't per se about immigration. The point was to have a respectful, intellectual discourse in public. Pick your favorite public policy topic. My point stands, even if we're discussing soy bean pricing laws. Discussing the details of immigration is a massive topic for another day. To really drive this home: 1) Don't spread hate - there are obvious limits to this. Calling for assassination of public officials counts as hate speech. Saying something offensive is fine as far as it doesn't incite violence. 2) Have an intelligent, evidence based discussion, be respectful and we're trying to move the country forward. Not divide and turn to our own echo chambers. Come to a resolution through debate and concession.
- zo1 6y ago
  You can't have an intelligent and non-emotional argument about certain topics in full (e.g. racism, sexuality, politics, immigration, religion), nor can you do so without certain sides invoking some "hate" aura because like it or not, there is a prevailing (and left-leaning) definition that is semi-agreed and pushed by official institutions, and you can't go against it without your argument being labelled "hate". And no wonder the right feels persecuted, because their beliefs are not necessarily hateful yet they are labelled as such by default. It's like drawing the line somewhere arbitrary and then asking the side whose beliefs are on the other side "why can't you discuss this without resorting to hate speech", and "stop complaining because your side is hateful" and "it's okay for companies to refuse you service because your ideas are hate speech and X-ist". Few examples of acceptable "hate-speech" that falls within that acceptable line: Anti-white Racism. ACAB. Punch-A-Nazi.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    And increasingly more and more things are being brought under that umbrella. The right’s doctrine of Constitutional interpretation? According to a sitting US Senator, “racist,” “misogynistic,” and “homophobic.” https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1320808025393868800?s=20 https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1320808025393868800?s=2... Immigration is a good example. Cultural relativism has become broadly accepted among the progressive left. As a result, they increasingly can only see immigration as an economic issue. Preserving the country’s existing culture to them isn’t a valid reason, so they deem it “racist.” This is internally consistent to them. If culture doesn’t make a difference, the only reason not to have mass immigration is potential economic downsides, or limited infrastructure. Assimilation and the “Melting Pot” is increasingly coming under attack for the same reason. This is totally incomprehensible to conservatives, who reject cultural relativism. They believe the success of a society is based on deep-seated cultural features and social reinforcement thereof. (I once had a Japanese person go through hundreds of years of Japanese history to explain to me why the country has less problems with corruption than many other Asian countries.) Within that framework, “we don’t want our community to change” is a completely valid position. At the very least, assimilation is indispensable.

systemvoltage 6y ago

The point wasn't per se about immigration. The point was to have a respectful, intellectual discourse in public. Pick your favorite public policy topic. My point stands, even if we're discussing soy bean pricing laws. Discussing the details of immigration is a massive topic for another day. To really drive this home: 1) Don't spread hate - there are obvious limits to this. Calling for assassination of public officials counts as hate speech. Saying something offensive is fine as far as it doesn't incite violence. 2) Have an intelligent, evidence based discussion, be respectful and we're trying to move the country forward. Not divide and turn to our own echo chambers. Come to a resolution through debate and concession.

zo1 6y ago
You can't have an intelligent and non-emotional argument about certain topics in full (e.g. racism, sexuality, politics, immigration, religion), nor can you do so without certain sides invoking some "hate" aura because like it or not, there is a prevailing (and left-leaning) definition that is semi-agreed and pushed by official institutions, and you can't go against it without your argument being labelled "hate". And no wonder the right feels persecuted, because their beliefs are not necessarily hateful yet they are labelled as such by default. It's like drawing the line somewhere arbitrary and then asking the side whose beliefs are on the other side "why can't you discuss this without resorting to hate speech", and "stop complaining because your side is hateful" and "it's okay for companies to refuse you service because your ideas are hate speech and X-ist". Few examples of acceptable "hate-speech" that falls within that acceptable line: Anti-white Racism. ACAB. Punch-A-Nazi.
- rayiner 6y ago
  And increasingly more and more things are being brought under that umbrella. The right’s doctrine of Constitutional interpretation? According to a sitting US Senator, “racist,” “misogynistic,” and “homophobic.” https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1320808025393868800?s=20 https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1320808025393868800?s=2... Immigration is a good example. Cultural relativism has become broadly accepted among the progressive left. As a result, they increasingly can only see immigration as an economic issue. Preserving the country’s existing culture to them isn’t a valid reason, so they deem it “racist.” This is internally consistent to them. If culture doesn’t make a difference, the only reason not to have mass immigration is potential economic downsides, or limited infrastructure. Assimilation and the “Melting Pot” is increasingly coming under attack for the same reason. This is totally incomprehensible to conservatives, who reject cultural relativism. They believe the success of a society is based on deep-seated cultural features and social reinforcement thereof. (I once had a Japanese person go through hundreds of years of Japanese history to explain to me why the country has less problems with corruption than many other Asian countries.) Within that framework, “we don’t want our community to change” is a completely valid position. At the very least, assimilation is indispensable.