2 ms·

Many bigots have jobs and produce economic value. Each bigot has a mother who loves them. Many bigots have children they sacrifice for and protect. But most im

Many bigots have jobs and produce economic value. Each bigot has a mother who loves them. Many bigots have children they sacrifice for and protect. But most importantly, bigots can be redeemed. If you violently remove someone, they lose the potential for redemption. That’s my general response to “what value do bigots have.” But what about bigots who brought about exceptional change in the world. If they had been removed, violently, the world would be worse off. Karl Marx was a bigot, anti-Semite and Mark Twain too. Malcolm X was a bigot and furthered civil rights. LBJ was a bigot who passed the civil rights act. Lincoln was a bigot that ended slavery. Bigotry is bad, but it’s not someone’s defining characteristic. We want to end bigotry and help people commit less bigotry.

Tanjreeve 3y ago
If I'd posted the same thing about $group I'd have had plenty of free speech defenders saying it's my right to ask questions have debate, express views etc. But apparently if I want to have similar types of debate about $group then it's not my free speech it's just me being violent in my words etc. My suspicioun is a lot of "unlimited free speech" views are based on all debate being abstract chin stroking rather than having their own existence potentially be questioned and subject to the same kind of interrogation that are commonly expressed on the internet in hate speech. For most people who are on the end of these "intellectual debates" there's not just fear created from what if a political group holding X views gets into a position of wielding power but there's also stochastic violence often from repeated assertions that they belong to some hive mind (e.g shootings in mosques and synagogues alike). These are always hand waved away by people who just want to pretend like it's all an abstract parlour game wether from malice or lack of caring.

Tanjreeve 3y ago

If I'd posted the same thing about $group I'd have had plenty of free speech defenders saying it's my right to ask questions have debate, express views etc. But apparently if I want to have similar types of debate about $group then it's not my free speech it's just me being violent in my words etc. My suspicioun is a lot of "unlimited free speech" views are based on all debate being abstract chin stroking rather than having their own existence potentially be questioned and subject to the same kind of interrogation that are commonly expressed on the internet in hate speech. For most people who are on the end of these "intellectual debates" there's not just fear created from what if a political group holding X views gets into a position of wielding power but there's also stochastic violence often from repeated assertions that they belong to some hive mind (e.g shootings in mosques and synagogues alike). These are always hand waved away by people who just want to pretend like it's all an abstract parlour game wether from malice or lack of caring.