6 ms·

I don't know if you are deliberately missing the point in a calculated troll and I'm being an idiot feeding it, but in case you're actually genuine try this one

by harry8 6y ago

I don't know if you are deliberately missing the point in a calculated troll and I'm being an idiot feeding it, but in case you're actually genuine try this one on. It's good to think about. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, yeah them, successfully ran civil liberties cases against Jim Crow and also effectively fought racially segregated schools in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps Do you stick with the idea the civil rights movement was good and to be supported, Jim Crow and segregation bad and to be opposed or abandon that idea because Fred Phelps is also an A1 top-shelf homophobic asshole? There's the principle. I genuinely don't care that Fred Phelps supports the idea that race should not be important. It has no influence at all my belief. None. Martin Luther King, yes he has had some influence. Phelps? I genuinely don't care what he thinks about it when it comes to my thoughts on racial inequality. I don't count Phelps as a friend, I utterly reject the idea that I have anything to do with him at all. But if you stick with your principle of making sure you're not on the same side as horrible human beings you've got to abandon supporting the struggle for racial equality. Or the other choice is to abandon principle altogether. You have no rights, I have no rights, rights are granted whoever is liked and before you can say "How the f&^k did that happen?" The strongest always gets their way and their is no rule of law, no democracy, no freedom and no justice at all. You can probably find some pretty famous examples in history where this has been tried and how that went. Combating the existence of the horrific is always used to take rights away and leads to something far worse. And also, as an aside, it so happens that I am not a republican but I do know for a fact that rather a lot of registered republicans literally went to war against nazis and fought them bravely and well with some of those registered republicans paying for it with everything. So in taking on all republicans like you just did, look who you are beside there. The real thing that needed actual war to solve. It's just silly. Make your argument using logic from facts. Is this a thing that is right and that I support for the right reasons? That's enough. Even when you're being shouted down. Even if some nasty idiot agrees with you for all the wrong reasons. And here's the kicker, you can still absolutely call out those nasty idiots who claim to agree with you for being what they are! Phelps is a nasty bit of work. The civil liberties movement was and is great. Done. Easy.

anigbrowl 6y ago
But if you stick with your principle of making sure you're not on the same side as horrible human beings you've got to abandon supporting the struggle for racial equality. A strange argument. You could just call out extremely bigoted people, who sometimes sneak into well-intentioned projects in order to get moral cover. where is it written that you have to cede ground to the bigoted person? You allude to this in your final paragraph but frankly, that seems like handwaving rather than really engaging with the issue. Combating the existence of the horrific is always used to take rights away and leads to something far worse. Extremely questionable. It seems to me that this justification is often raised in lieu of engaging with a deeply unpleasant subject.
- harry8 6y ago
  If you check "yes" next to showdead on your settings page you can see what I was responding to, which I'm pretty sure you've missed here. Dang taken exception and actions in this thread so it's best not to piss him off if possible so we probably should leave it and I've left this to the next day to give cool off a chance etc. > It seems to me that this justification is often raised in lieu of engaging with a deeply unpleasant subject. I go exactly and completely the other way with that. Engaging in discussions of rights. In this case whether its ok to arbitrarily deny access to a huge section of the market to a developer without explanation, recourse or anything remotely resembling due process. With rights it tends to be the other way around entirely. Hence the length and painstaking nature of my contributions to this thread. "These people are awful, oppose them" And you look and they are awful so think no further about it. Don't engage at all beyond that. As opposed to engaging with something that /is/ very deeply unpleasant and necessary. "Our rights are also the rights of people we greatly and deeply dislike because they turn our stomachs. If we are to have rights, these people we find reprehensible must have the same rights or they are not actually rights at all." Which led to me citing the example of Jewish lawyers at the ACLU with close proximity to the massive trauma of the holocaust defending rights they believed in _even_ when the test case was for Nazis. That's engaging very, very deeply with a very, very deeply unpleasant subject. And they did that and did it well despite the fact it must have been just horribly and deeply unpleasant having to explain that point of view to relatives who survived the holocaust and know what the insides of those death camps looked like when they were operational. Imagine doing it. Imagine explaining that. So yeah, the exact opposite. Engaging deeply with rights is unpleasant. Throwing your hands up and saying "to hell with these idiots, I don't care, they're awful!" is not engaging at all. (And it is always a very tempting response that plays well to our emotions.)

by harry8 6y ago

anigbrowl 6y ago

But if you stick with your principle of making sure you're not on the same side as horrible human beings you've got to abandon supporting the struggle for racial equality. A strange argument. You could just call out extremely bigoted people, who sometimes sneak into well-intentioned projects in order to get moral cover. where is it written that you have to cede ground to the bigoted person? You allude to this in your final paragraph but frankly, that seems like handwaving rather than really engaging with the issue. Combating the existence of the horrific is always used to take rights away and leads to something far worse. Extremely questionable. It seems to me that this justification is often raised in lieu of engaging with a deeply unpleasant subject.

harry8 6y ago
If you check "yes" next to showdead on your settings page you can see what I was responding to, which I'm pretty sure you've missed here. Dang taken exception and actions in this thread so it's best not to piss him off if possible so we probably should leave it and I've left this to the next day to give cool off a chance etc. > It seems to me that this justification is often raised in lieu of engaging with a deeply unpleasant subject. I go exactly and completely the other way with that. Engaging in discussions of rights. In this case whether its ok to arbitrarily deny access to a huge section of the market to a developer without explanation, recourse or anything remotely resembling due process. With rights it tends to be the other way around entirely. Hence the length and painstaking nature of my contributions to this thread. "These people are awful, oppose them" And you look and they are awful so think no further about it. Don't engage at all beyond that. As opposed to engaging with something that /is/ very deeply unpleasant and necessary. "Our rights are also the rights of people we greatly and deeply dislike because they turn our stomachs. If we are to have rights, these people we find reprehensible must have the same rights or they are not actually rights at all." Which led to me citing the example of Jewish lawyers at the ACLU with close proximity to the massive trauma of the holocaust defending rights they believed in _even_ when the test case was for Nazis. That's engaging very, very deeply with a very, very deeply unpleasant subject. And they did that and did it well despite the fact it must have been just horribly and deeply unpleasant having to explain that point of view to relatives who survived the holocaust and know what the insides of those death camps looked like when they were operational. Imagine doing it. Imagine explaining that. So yeah, the exact opposite. Engaging deeply with rights is unpleasant. Throwing your hands up and saying "to hell with these idiots, I don't care, they're awful!" is not engaging at all. (And it is always a very tempting response that plays well to our emotions.)