3 ms·

Yes. When you omnislash posts and read them line-by-line, they don't make sense. That's your problem, not mine. ------------- But whatever, I'll try to focus

Yes. When you omnislash posts and read them line-by-line, they don't make sense. That's your problem, not mine. ------------- But whatever, I'll try to focus on your more legitimate posts and push this (already flagged /banned) discussion towards something that resembles a worthy discussion. > Dose it satisfy you that once that has happened, feminists would be classified as a hate organization? You've confused ideology with groups and organizations. The Nazis can be identified as a Hate Group. They followed the Fascist ideology (among many other ideologies). Planned Parenthood can be identified as a group. They don't seem to be a "hate group" however. They follow the feminist ideology (among many other ideologies). If hypothetically, Planned Parenthood as a group (or if their leaders) decided that killing men was part of their explicit group focus, then yes I'd be cool with calling them a hate group. ----------- EDIT: Lets cut to the chase. Do you want to call #BLM or #MeToo a hate group?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The Nazis can be identified as a Hate Group. They followed the Fascist ideology (among many other ideologies). But the Nazis, as an organization, no longer exist. They used to control a country and have a government. Nazi ideology may still exist but the Furher is dead. > Planned Parenthood can be identified as a group. They don't seem to be a "hate group" however. So this is the other problem. If you want to claim they're a hate group you point to age as a protected class, and then you end up with everyone shouting at each other because whether that's true or not turns on the very point of contention. In particular, you now have to make a censorship decision where the "accused hate group" only doesn't get censored if the decisionmaker agrees with their ideology. That's... bad. > Lets cut to the chase. Do you want to call #BLM or #MeToo a hate group? I want not to have censorship, and I find a good way of doing this is to insist that censorship decisions be made on principled basis. Because when people realize that the rules they're proposing would also be applied to people they like, they stop liking those rules.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > If you want to claim they're a hate group you point to age as a protected class, and then you end up with everyone shouting at each other because whether that's true or not turns on the very point of contention. Yes, people make bullshit troll arguments all the time. So cut through the trolling and reach the meat of the discussion. Don't fall for the bait. If you really want to call Planned Parenthood a hate group, go on ahead. I don't think you'll get very far. But you're using it as a hypothetical false argument trying to prove a point, rather than relying upon a real life argument or real life example. As I said before, I know you're trying to talk about a real situation. So try me. Who are you actually trying to talk about? This topic is [flagged] at this point so I don't think too many people are visiting here anyway.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > If you really want to call Planned Parenthood a hate group, go on ahead. I don't think you'll get very far. That depends on who you're trying to get very far with. If it's pro-choice coastal elites, obviously not. But suppose the person making the decision is pro-life. > Who are you actually trying to talk about? It's not about any group in particular. It's about what happens when you open this can of worms. Actual formal hierarchical "hate organizations" are basically dead. But there are a lot of unstructured collections of people with shared goals and in each of those groups there are extremists and people with mental illness and teenagers who think it makes them big to threaten someone else. It's no difficulty to find instances of bad behavior. But group-level enforcement is just playing into tribalism. There is a reason collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And there is no reason to think censorship will ever end any differently than it always does, with whatever group is in charge of censorship decisions imputing them with whatever ideological biases they may hold.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      I'm a pro-life coastal elite. Try me. Private Catholic school, cause I'm Catholic. About as elite as you can get (well, I went to Public High school I guess). I can talk about other groups without falling into the fallacy of just calling them a "Hate Group" just because I disagree with them. Even on important issues like Abortion. In any case, the anti-abortionists who go towards bombs and explosives are hate groups, and I have to work at making sure my Catholic (and Catholics, a group I'm part of) are not associated with such assholes. That's just life. Assholes exist, on my side of the political spectrum, on your side, on opponents side, etc. etc. I'm not going to align myself with those violent assholes to score political points. I'm more than confident in my ability to argue about the life of the fetus on my own grounds without having to bring in strawman arguments or whatever. ---------- If anything at all, its become more important to distinguish myself from other assholes as these hate groups come up. I can be pro-life without being a hate group, but it does mean acknowledging that the hate-groups need to be moderated (both in my own groups, but also in the public spaces).
- freejazz 3y ago
  >I want not to have censorship, and I find a good way of doing this is to insist that censorship decisions be made on principled basis. That's a non-answer. You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with??? also, are you actually trying to argue that planned parenthood is a hate group because they abort babies and therefore that is ageist? First off, it's old age that is a protected class. And second, how could anyone take this argument in good faith?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with??? The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored. If you want some other principles then I'm going to insist that you're very clear about what they are, so I can make sure they're applied consistently to you as you would have them applied to anyone else. > First off, it's old age that is a protected class. There are many different laws that specify what a protected class is and it's not uncommon for the text to say no more than "on the basis of age". For example, people under 40 aren't protected for the purposes of federal employment discrimination but it's illegal in New York City to discriminate against younger people for housing: https://www.nyc.gov/site/fairhousing/rights-responsibilities/what-are-the-protected-calasses.page https://www.nyc.gov/site/fairhousing/rights-responsibilities... > how could anyone take this argument in good faith? There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      >The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored. You immediately within the same sentence just said "when principles are being applied". >There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you. This isn't a good faith debate as to whether or not that is discrimination. You are one of the most unreasonable and bad faith posters I've engaged with here.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The Nazis can be identified as a Hate Group. They followed the Fascist ideology (among many other ideologies). But the Nazis, as an organization, no longer exist. They used to control a country and have a government. Nazi ideology may still exist but the Furher is dead. > Planned Parenthood can be identified as a group. They don't seem to be a "hate group" however. So this is the other problem. If you want to claim they're a hate group you point to age as a protected class, and then you end up with everyone shouting at each other because whether that's true or not turns on the very point of contention. In particular, you now have to make a censorship decision where the "accused hate group" only doesn't get censored if the decisionmaker agrees with their ideology. That's... bad. > Lets cut to the chase. Do you want to call #BLM or #MeToo a hate group? I want not to have censorship, and I find a good way of doing this is to insist that censorship decisions be made on principled basis. Because when people realize that the rules they're proposing would also be applied to people they like, they stop liking those rules.

dragontamer 3y ago
> If you want to claim they're a hate group you point to age as a protected class, and then you end up with everyone shouting at each other because whether that's true or not turns on the very point of contention. Yes, people make bullshit troll arguments all the time. So cut through the trolling and reach the meat of the discussion. Don't fall for the bait. If you really want to call Planned Parenthood a hate group, go on ahead. I don't think you'll get very far. But you're using it as a hypothetical false argument trying to prove a point, rather than relying upon a real life argument or real life example. As I said before, I know you're trying to talk about a real situation. So try me. Who are you actually trying to talk about? This topic is [flagged] at this point so I don't think too many people are visiting here anyway.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > If you really want to call Planned Parenthood a hate group, go on ahead. I don't think you'll get very far. That depends on who you're trying to get very far with. If it's pro-choice coastal elites, obviously not. But suppose the person making the decision is pro-life. > Who are you actually trying to talk about? It's not about any group in particular. It's about what happens when you open this can of worms. Actual formal hierarchical "hate organizations" are basically dead. But there are a lot of unstructured collections of people with shared goals and in each of those groups there are extremists and people with mental illness and teenagers who think it makes them big to threaten someone else. It's no difficulty to find instances of bad behavior. But group-level enforcement is just playing into tribalism. There is a reason collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And there is no reason to think censorship will ever end any differently than it always does, with whatever group is in charge of censorship decisions imputing them with whatever ideological biases they may hold.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    I'm a pro-life coastal elite. Try me. Private Catholic school, cause I'm Catholic. About as elite as you can get (well, I went to Public High school I guess). I can talk about other groups without falling into the fallacy of just calling them a "Hate Group" just because I disagree with them. Even on important issues like Abortion. In any case, the anti-abortionists who go towards bombs and explosives are hate groups, and I have to work at making sure my Catholic (and Catholics, a group I'm part of) are not associated with such assholes. That's just life. Assholes exist, on my side of the political spectrum, on your side, on opponents side, etc. etc. I'm not going to align myself with those violent assholes to score political points. I'm more than confident in my ability to argue about the life of the fetus on my own grounds without having to bring in strawman arguments or whatever. ---------- If anything at all, its become more important to distinguish myself from other assholes as these hate groups come up. I can be pro-life without being a hate group, but it does mean acknowledging that the hate-groups need to be moderated (both in my own groups, but also in the public spaces).
freejazz 3y ago
>I want not to have censorship, and I find a good way of doing this is to insist that censorship decisions be made on principled basis. That's a non-answer. You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with??? also, are you actually trying to argue that planned parenthood is a hate group because they abort babies and therefore that is ageist? First off, it's old age that is a protected class. And second, how could anyone take this argument in good faith?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with??? The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored. If you want some other principles then I'm going to insist that you're very clear about what they are, so I can make sure they're applied consistently to you as you would have them applied to anyone else. > First off, it's old age that is a protected class. There are many different laws that specify what a protected class is and it's not uncommon for the text to say no more than "on the basis of age". For example, people under 40 aren't protected for the purposes of federal employment discrimination but it's illegal in New York City to discriminate against younger people for housing: https://www.nyc.gov/site/fairhousing/rights-responsibilities/what-are-the-protected-calasses.page https://www.nyc.gov/site/fairhousing/rights-responsibilities... > how could anyone take this argument in good faith? There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    >The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored. You immediately within the same sentence just said "when principles are being applied". >There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you. This isn't a good faith debate as to whether or not that is discrimination. You are one of the most unreasonable and bad faith posters I've engaged with here.