Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

I think those who are “fine” with the majority setting the rules might not be quite so phlegmatic if the speech codes, mandatory attitude-adjustment sessions etc were promoting an agenda that was less to their liking.  I find Pakistan to be a cautionary tale: it once had a secular government but now routinely elects Islamist parties to power.  Anyone who leaves Islam for either atheism or Christianity is literally in fear for their life. But that’s what the majority want.  It’s what they vote for, over and over.  C’est la vie!  
 

Nobody is suggesting the US, Canada or Finland are about to become Pakistan.  In any case, it’s not the atheists THEY would be going after, at least not the ones who conform to approved speech.  But what concerns many of us is the illiberal nature of the trend in many western countries.  First it was the ever greater restrictions on speech by college students and faculty, in the interest of keeping some from “feeling unsafe”.  Now the speech-code people are showing up in corporate HR departments and even executive positions.  People being hounded out of their jobs. But it’s fine: they’re only coming after unpopular views. There’s no way that category is going to expand to infringe on MY rights, so it’s fine.   And anyway it’s what the majority wants, so it’s too bad YOU hold unfashionable views.  You should educate yourself to conform.  Then you’ll be fine, like me, because they’re never coming for people like me.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Regardless of which party or candidate you prefer or dislike, I’m concerned that the Constitution has, or is dangerously close, to becoming irrelevant. Freedom of speech appears to me to have been res

If ever there was a time for a strong, independent, moderate party. . . .it is NOW.  

I'm not thrilled with Biden, but there's no way in hell I could ever vote for Trump. Nearly anyone would be better than that arrogant buffoon.

Posted Images

On 7/17/2020 at 7:29 AM, TABA said:

I think those who are “fine” with the majority setting the rules might not be quite so phlegmatic if the speech codes, mandatory attitude-adjustment sessions etc were promoting an agenda that was less to their liking.  I find Pakistan to be a cautionary tale: it once had a secular government but now routinely elects Islamist parties to power.  Anyone who leaves Islam for either atheism or Christianity is literally in fear for their life. But that’s what the majority want.  It’s what they vote for, over and over.  C’est la vie!  
 

 

I agree with the sentiment, but what is the alternative? Democracy sucks. Majority rule sucks. Just not as much as any other known system.

 

What I find truly ironic is American conservatives complaining about the "radical left" and "tyranny of the majority" (neither phrase being yours) when the balance of power in your country is decidedly Republican, despite the fact that majority of your voting public is not. Tyranny of the majority? Please.

 

Also, it bears pointing out that the American "radical left" would be pretty middle of the road in Canada. Somehow we muddle through. We certainly don't have it all figured out, but the country isn't going to hell in a hand basket either. This is one of the reasons why I regard a lot of the rhetoric currently being employed, here and elsewhere, as simply fearmongering.

 

Quote

Nobody is suggesting the US, Canada or Finland are about to become Pakistan.  In any case, it’s not the atheists THEY would be going after, at least not the ones who conform to approved speech.  But what concerns many of us is the illiberal nature of the trend in many western countries.  First it was the ever greater restrictions on speech by college students and faculty, in the interest of keeping some from “feeling unsafe”.  Now the speech-code people are showing up in corporate HR departments and even executive positions.  People being hounded out of their jobs.

 

I have not observed this. I know of no one (save for some celebrities) who has been "hounded out" of a job for this reason. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, but I don't think it is as big of an issue as some people seem to think it is. I also don't know that these are actually illiberal trends. In a liberal society, it seems to me that people should feel safe. Valuing mental health seems fairly liberal to me. It is possible for two different liberal principles to come into conflict. Liberalism, after all, isn't that well-defined. If free speech is affecting mental health, then a conversation needs to be had about what should be done. This conversation, and its consequent conversations, are now playing out in the public sphere. I don't find this troubling. I don't see an alternative.

 

Also, you may recall that our (Liberal!) Prime Minister used to wear black face. This was exposed during an election campaign, which he won. He owned it, apologized, and moved on. He refused to go away. And he won. Point being, maybe cancel culture is worse in the States than it is here, but maybe people also need to stand up for themselves a bit more. If you're actually fired for something you say on your own time, you may have legal recourse. If you're being "hounded out" of a job? Suck it up, or shut up. Your choice.

 

Quote

 

But it’s fine: they’re only coming after unpopular views. There’s no way that category is going to expand to infringe on MY rights, so it’s fine.   And anyway it’s what the majority wants, so it’s too bad YOU hold unfashionable views.  You should educate yourself to conform.  Then you’ll be fine, like me, because they’re never coming for people like me.

 

This a caricature, which is fine, but there it is. Also, what I said above about the actual balance of power in the States seems relevant. The idea that the "radical left" is taking over when Republicans are in power with a minority of support seems patently silly to me. It also seems very silly to me that the American right (not you...) is attempting to brand Biden, who is clearly a career centrist, as a "radical left" democrat. Just imagine what they would have said if the nomination had gone to Sanders or Warren!

 

What I do want to seriously ask you is what your alternative suggestion is. Clearly you are troubled by popular voices in society driving the narrative regarding acceptable speech. Fine. Now, I've made the point that I'm about to make before with only limited success, but I'll have another go at it. It seems to me that these people are exercising their rights to speech in ways that you don't like. You have not specifically said that they should stop, but some people here have. This is an attempt to suppress their speech. How is this really different from what you find troubling?

 

My point is this: if you want to have absolute free speech, then you're stuck with it, even when people use their speech in ways that you don't like. Even when they use it to hound you out of a job. Even when they use it to cancel you. Even when they use it to advocate for restrictions on speech. Anything else seems to me to be trying to have it both ways. Alternatively, we could recognize that absolutes usually aren't a good idea, and have an actual, sensible conversation about how we might place reasonable restrictions on speech. But that's probably the "radical leftist" in me talking.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

My point is this: if you want to have absolute free speech, then you're stuck with it, even when people use their speech in ways that you don't like. Even when they use it to hound you out of a job. Even when they use it to cancel you. Even when they use it to advocate for restrictions on speech. Anything else seems to me to be trying to have it both ways.

 

I doubt very many are trying to silence the radicals either. Most are just trying to point out what the radicals are doing, outside of the more visible rioting. Point out that the mainstream media sometimes isn't critical enough of what is going on and often outright sides with the insanity. Hopefully, that will get people to change their voting criteria and make businesses consider whether they really need to cave in to the cancel culture.

 

What quite many do want, however, is to restore law and order. Let's not pretend it's just talk that companies and institutions cave in to. Many small-time enterpreneurs side with the rioters because they dont want their businesses burned down.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ToHellWithMe said:

 

I doubt very many are trying to silence the radicals either. Most are just trying to point out what the radicals are doing, outside of the more visible rioting. Point out that the mainstream media sometimes isn't critical enough of what is going on and often outright sides with the insanity. Hopefully, that will get people to change their voting criteria and make businesses consider whether they really need to cave in to the cancel culture.

 

Very well, but the position you describe basically reduces to "I don't like this!", which is fair enough, but isn't really that different from anyone taking offense at anything. It certainly isn't persuasive.

 

50 minutes ago, ToHellWithMe said:

What quite many do want, however, is to restore law and order. Let's not pretend it's just talk that companies and institutions cave in to. Many small-time enterpreneurs side with the rioters because they dont want their businesses burned down.

 

Also fair enough. As I've said, I don't condone violence. The problem, as you know, is that the current culture of policing is a major part of the issue here, so "restoring law and order" may just end up making this worse. Not saying I have a solution, just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2020 at 3:31 PM, Bhim said:

I think my preference for Trump is well-documented. So in our common spirit as freethinking ex-Christians, I'd like to pose the following question to the anti-Trump or Trump-ambivalent crowd:

 

What are your objections to Trump - both in terms of policy and his cultural effect - which are unrelated to race or any other race-adjacent issue?

 

I'm posing the question this way because I find race to be an uninteresting topic, as well as an extremely noisy one right now due to the race riots. At present I'm not terribly interested in debate. I'm asking because most of the secular conservatives I listen to right now are pro-Trump. I would like to get an opposing viewpoint, but all of the anti-Trump people in the world of social commentary are obsessed with race. I feel that ex-Christians are better qualified to ignore such nonsense.

I find him vulgar and crooked. Trump University and his past comments about his own daughter suggest a very creepy man and a scam artist.

 

The UK is also filled with charlatans, right and left to be fair, but Trump is to me is like Jesus is to ex-Christians, a harmful fraud. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I agree with the sentiment, but what is the alternative? Democracy sucks. Majority rule sucks. Just not as much as any other known system.

 

There's democracy where the rights of the minority are respected and unpopular speech is protected (many Western countries), and then there's the inferior democracy where it's just about winning elections and the losers get screwed (Pakistan, Turkey, Russia to the extent it's democratic at all, Venezuela under Chavez before it became a dictatorship)

 

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

What I find truly ironic is American conservatives complaining about the "radical left" and "tyranny of the majority" (neither phrase being yours) when the balance of power in your country is decidedly Republican, despite the fact that majority of your voting public is not. Tyranny of the majority? Please.

 

 

The Republicans hold a lot of elected offices in some states, but very few in others.  In any case, elected offices wield one kind of power, the news media, social media and academia wield another form, and it's growing.  So please, as you might say.

 

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Also, it bears pointing out that the American "radical left" would be pretty middle of the road in Canada. Somehow we muddle through. We certainly don't have it all figured out, but the country isn't going to hell in a hand basket either. This is one of the reasons why I regard a lot of the rhetoric currently being employed, here and elsewhere, as simply fearmongering.

 

I'm glad you approve of your country.  Canadians have much to be proud of, and it certainly was a good choice for my honeymoon (though some Canadians might consider Alberta to be filled with deplorable neo-Americans).  Personally I'm not crazy about a government that detains somebody for leaving tire-marks on a sloganeering crosswalk.

 

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

In a liberal society, it seems to me that people should feel safe. Valuing mental health seems fairly liberal to me. It is possible for two different liberal principles to come into conflict. Liberalism, after all, isn't that well-defined. If free speech is affecting mental health, then a conversation needs to be had about what should be done.

 

Valuing mental health is noble.  But as far as I am concerned, your right to not have your feelings hurt ends when it infringes on my right to free speech.  Being blunt, or even being an asshole, should be neither a crime nor a sin.  People are "feeling unsafe" for a growing list of reasons.  Offering a compliment, asking somebody where they are from,  perfuming an act of "cultural appropriation", have all become grounds for making somebody feel "unsafe".  It's a very slippery slope that gives power to the most thin-skinned.  I respect your different opinion here.  I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this.

 

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Also, you may recall that our (Liberal!) Prime Minister used to wear black face. This was exposed during an election campaign, which he won. He owned it, apologized, and moved on. He refused to go away. And he won. Point being, maybe cancel culture is worse in the States than it is here, but maybe people also need to stand up for themselves a bit more. If you're actually fired for something you say on your own time, you may have legal recourse.

 

I agree about standing up.  Too many people have caved to the mob and issued apologies for harmless remarks, just to make the attacks stop.  That just encourages the mob.  When it comes to the gaffes of politicians, whether in the US or Canada, it helps a lot when you're a progressive, because you can count on most of the media covering for you, or even memory-holing your transgression.

 

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

If you're being "hounded out" of a job? Suck it up, or shut up. Your choice.

 

If I were hounded out of a job for being an atheist, would you have the same advice for me?

 

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

It seems to me that these people are exercising their rights to speech in ways that you don't like. You have not specifically said that they should stop, but some people here have. This is an attempt to suppress their speech. How is this really different from what you find troubling?

 

I would like them to stop, yes.  That's not the same as forcing them to stop.  Do you not see a difference?  If you're addressing somebody else, then address somebody else.

 

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

My point is this: if you want to have absolute free speech, then you're stuck with it, even when people use their speech in ways that you don't like. Even when they use it to hound you out of a job. Even when they use it to cancel you. Even when they use it to advocate for restrictions on speech. Anything else seems to me to be trying to have it both ways.

 

I DO want absolute free speech, yes, excluding only direct incitements to physical violence.  Thankfully, as an American, the Constitution agrees with me, and so far the Courts have agreed.  Calling for somebody to be fired from their job is speech, which should be protected.  Acting on that, and firing them is an action, not speech.  Advocating for restrictions on speech is speech, which should be protected.  Actually enacting restrictions on speech is an action, not speech.  I don't see how I'm trying to have it both ways. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@TABA, I don't want to get into a protracted argument with you on this topic. Partly this is because I don't think it would get us anywhere, and partly it's because I like you and I don't want to argue fruitlessly with you. But mainly it's because I'm not actually interested in trying to convince you to see things the way I do. My way of seeing things isn't special. It certainly isn't necessarily right. It's just my way of seeing things. You have your way of seeing things, and that's fine. What I do want to do is try to clarify a couple of points where I seem to not have been fully explicit, and to answer a couple of questions that you have put to me. I do also have a question or two to put to you, but I don't ask these questions to disparage your views, but rather to help me understand them better.

 

Quote

 

The Republicans hold a lot of elected offices in some states, but very few in others.  In any case, elected offices wield one kind of power, the news media, social media and academia wield another form, and it's growing.  So please, as you might say.

 

Yes, and when I watch American news media it doesn't seem to me to be all that radically left. Neither does academia. The power of the media is certainly growing. It seems to me, though, that the power of academia is actively shrinking. Maybe we just don't agree here.

 

Quote

 

I'm glad you approve of your country.  Canadians have much to be proud of, and it certainly was a good choice for my honeymoon (though some Canadians might consider Alberta to be filled with deplorable neo-Americans).  Personally I'm not crazy about a government that detains somebody for leaving tire-marks on a sloganeering crosswalk.

 

 

I actually don't, particularly, "approve of my country". It's mostly fine. There's some good, and some bad, and a lot of in between. My point wasn't that it's great here, my point was just that, on the whole, we're a fair bit left of the States, and it's still fine. So I find the panic about the American Radical Left silly. That's all.

 

Quote

Valuing mental health is noble.  But as far as I am concerned, your right to not have your feelings hurt ends when it infringes on my right to free speech.  Being blunt, or even being an asshole, should be neither a crime nor a sin.  People are "feeling unsafe" for a growing list of reasons.  Offering a compliment, asking somebody where they are from,  perfuming an act of "cultural appropriation", have all become grounds for making somebody feel "unsafe".  It's a very slippery slope that gives power to the most thin-skinned.  I respect your different opinion here.  I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this.

 

I understand your opinion, and I agree that we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye here, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that a slippery slope argument is one which is actively fallacious.

 

Quote

 

I agree about standing up.  Too many people have caved to the mob and issued apologies for harmless remarks, just to make the attacks stop.  That just encourages the mob.  When it comes to the gaffes of politicians, whether in the US or Canada, it helps a lot when you're a progressive, because you can count on most of the media covering for you, or even memory-holing your transgression.

 

Fair enough. However, the media here didn't cover for Trudeau. They ripped him apart. Also, Trump hasn't exactly suffered that much from his "gaffes" either, despite the media coming after him, and despite him constantly playing the victim. So there's that.

 

Quote

 

If I were hounded out of a job for being an atheist, would you have the same advice for me?

 

Yes. Exactly the same advice.

 

I'm actually glad you asked this, because personally, as an atheist and a public school teacher, I need to be very careful about what I say, and to whom. I probably could not legally be fired for any atheistic comments that I might make (there is a clause in our education act which makes reference to teachers being expected to uphold a "Judeo-Christian ethic", but I suspect that my charter rights to freedom of religion and expression would supersede that if it came right down to it...but I'm not a lawyer), but I could, conceivably, be hounded out of a job for something I might say. I'm aware of this, so I'm careful about what I say. It isn't so bad.

 

Quote

 

I would like them to stop, yes.  That's not the same as forcing them to stop.  Do you not see a difference?  If you're addressing somebody else, then address somebody else.

 

I do see a difference. I'm not sure that you do, given your objection to people being hounded out of their jobs, but let's leave that aside for the moment. As I said in a previous post, if you'd like them to stop but you're not trying to make them stop then you're basically just complaining about something you don't like. Which is fine.

 

Quote

 

I DO want absolute free speech, yes, excluding only direct incitements to physical violence.  Thankfully, as an American, the Constitution agrees with me, and so far the Courts have agreed.  Calling for somebody to be fired from their job is speech, which should be protected.  Acting on that, and firing them is an action, not speech.  Advocating for restrictions on speech is speech, which should be protected.  Actually enacting restrictions on speech is an action, not speech.  I don't see how I'm trying to have it both ways. 

 

 

...but apparently you take issue with people being hounded out of their jobs for their speech. The "hounding out" process is an exercise of free speech. If you're not trying to have it both ways, then I'm afraid I'm not sure what your actual position is.

 

Also, it isn't at all clear to me what you mean by "direct incitements to physical violence". What counts as "direct"? What counts as an "incitement"? For that matter, what counts as "physical violence"? Can I say "murderers should be shot!"? Can I say "punch him for me."? Can I say "I wish someone would kill him."? Can I say "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."? Can I tell police "please don't be too nice" to suspects? Can I tell my fans to "knock the hell out of" my detractors? As it turns out, only some of these statements have been made by the current President of the United States. The usual defense is, "he was just joking", and he gets away with it. If he said "I wish someone would shoot that guy", and someone did it, would you hold him responsible? What if said he was joking? What if he told police "don't be too nice to suspects", and someone knelt on someone else's neck for 8 minutes? What if he said "I order you to invade Canada", and a war was started? I'm honestly asking. And, by the way, I know you're not a Trump supporter. I'm just trying to clarify your position on your proposed limit to free speech, and to illustrate the position that I'm about to espouse:

 

I think we have a fundamental difference in how we view speech. You seem to want to draw a clear line between speech and action. I don't think any such line may be drawn. Speech, on my view, is a form of action, and a very powerful one at that. Actions have consequences, and, by extension, so does speech. Sometimes the consequences are that a law is changed. Sometimes they are that someone is fired. Sometimes they are that someone else is moved to violence. Sometimes they are that a country is invaded. And so on. So I think we should recognize that free speech does not mean freedom from consequences for your speech. I think we should be realistic, and consider trying to limit speech which has consequences that are detrimental to the kind of society that we want to live in. But again, that's just my way of seeing things, and you are under absolutely no obligation to agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you limit speech, it will cause unexpected consequences.

 

Consider the following story:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-15/teenage-boy-was-given-estrogen-developed-breast-tissue-while-in-l-a-county-juvenile-hall-lawsuit-alleges

 

In summary, a doctor prescribed estrogen to some incarcerated 16-year-old boy who probably didn't even realize what it would do to him.

 

Now, hear me out. It's possible that other professionals working with the boy had some idea of what was going on. Normally, there would be a good chance that they could intervene and ask questions, but given the precarious climate around the topic of gender and transitioning, people in California no doubt realize they can't speak freely if they wish to keep their jobs.

 

Just one way things can go wrong in a way that is nigh-impossible to predict. Questioning a prescription like that isn't even forbidden per se, but just like @disillusioned said, people just have to be careful about what they say, and that is quite enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
16 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I understand your opinion, and I agree that we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye here, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that a slippery slope argument is one which is actively fallacious.

 

Fallacious how?  I think it’s very clear that we’ve seen a steady narrowing of what is deemed “permissable” speech in the past five years or so.  Currently in the U.K., police forces are calling people to warn them about “non-criminal hate speech” - speech, usually on social media, that is not against any law but is deemed by the cops to be hateful.  Imaging getting a call from the police to warn you about legally protected speech that they find objectionable. Nothing chilling there.  Nothing to be worried about, move along. Only people with the wrong views need to be concerned.

 

16 hours ago, disillusioned said:

but apparently you take issue with people being hounded out of their jobs for their speech. The "hounding out" process is an exercise of free speech. If you're not trying to have it both ways, then I'm afraid I'm not sure what your actual position is.

 

I object to trying to get people fired because of their opinions.  But you’re right, that is speech and it’s speech I would protect, even if it is repulsive to me.  I REALLY object to employers giving in to such pressure and firing people.  

 

16 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I think we have a fundamental difference in how we view speech. You seem to want to draw a clear line between speech and action. I don't think any such line may be drawn.

 

Yes, this is a major disagreement between your view and mine.  I don’t see either of us changing our mind.  So be it.

 

16 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I don't want to get into a protracted argument with you on this topic. Partly this is because I don't think it would get us anywhere, and partly it's because I like you and I don't want to argue fruitlessly with you. But mainly it's because I'm not actually interested in trying to convince you to see things the way I do

 

My feelings exactly.  So I’d like to wrap this up sooner rather than later.

 

Peace, brother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All good @TABA. Let's call it a wrap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

More on this pseudo science from the BLM leader. Apparently Nick Cannon has been taking in the same general teachings: 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2020 at 6:04 PM, disillusioned said:

 

I'm sorry to jump in,  but you just called Hitler an "alleged "white supremacist"". I'm forced to ask,  what on earth do you mean by this?

 

On 7/15/2020 at 5:23 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

What do you mean "alleged" white supremist? 

 

It's interesting that you both asked the same question. Not unexpected, but interesting. Let's be clear about the intent behind this question: is the intention here that I must call Hitler a white supremacist, lest I be labeled a Hitler sympathizer? If I fail to attach the appropriate label, am I going to be labeled a white supremacist (despite not even being white), and will my opinions thus be deemed unworthy of consideration? I know that you both are thoughtful individuals, and I assume that on an intellectual level you will answer "no" to both questions. But there is certainly a gut reaction to Hitler which requires us to regard him as the personification of evil. I think this is unwise, since it precludes any objective analysis of Hitler, and thus hinders our ability to analyze the historical events which led to his rise.

 

It pains me to feel I even need to say this, but allow me to assuage any concerns by stating that am no admirer of Hitler. But let's start with the understanding that one can be evil without being a white supremacist. By way of example, let me point to the example of Subhas Chandra Bose, whom non-Indians on this forum (which I assume includes everyone but me) will not recognize at all. Long story short, this man was an Indian freedom fighter who sought alliance with the Nazis as a means of removing the British presence from India. He met Hitler personally, and after Hitler new the war effort was in vain, he helped Bose flee to Japan to pursue his cause. To claim that Hitler is a white supremacist is either inconsistent with these historical facts, or perhaps requires us to redefine our understanding of "white supremacy." I don't say this because I have any love of Hitler. I say this because facts matter. If we are to have any discussion about Hitler with the precondition that I come to some specific conclusion about Hitler, then I refuse to participate in such a discussion for the same reason that I refuse to talk to creation scientists. I'm willing to follow the facts where they lead, even if they lead to an understanding that Hitler was evil, but not as committed to the cause of white supremacy as one wishes to believe.

 

On 7/15/2020 at 5:23 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Bhim, have you been reading Revelations? This sounds awfully like some religious apocalyptic pronouncement. Even my fundy religious family haven't gone this far in reference to BLM. Sure they think that our Labor party are communists using Covid to control us blah, blah, but they haven't quite gone down this road. I ask because this seems very much like the christian religious stuff you decry.

 

I am loathed to premise any argument on personal experience, but I'd ask you to remind yourself that while you are safely in New Zealand, I live mere miles from where George Floyd riots occurred not too long ago. Again, I stress that I don't want you to accept any argument of mine on the basis of differential personal experience. Bear in mind that I make the connection to religion precisely because BLM is reminiscent of the persecution complex espoused by most interpreters of the Book of Revelation. George Floyd, like Jesus, was a deeply flawed and immoral human being whose death resulted in his deification. If we're going to draw an analogy to Christianity (which I heartily welcome), let us do so at the crucifixion and resurrection narrative, not Christian eschatology. The death of George Floyd has resulted in riots, domestic violence, and activity that borders on terrorism. This isn't Revelation. This is Acts. I have personally witnessed the destruction of buildings by BLM "protestors," and I personally know business owners who were forced to board up their offices and spray paint "#BLM" on said boards in order to avoid violence by BLM, despite not believing in the cause of BLM or believing that George Floyd was anything less than a terrible human being whose death is not a tragedy (again, illegal, but not worthy of mourning).

 

I would love to discuss the analogy of BLM to Christianity. But let us understand that this is not a discussion of eschatology. This is a discussion about a movement which is analogous to the religion that infiltrated the Roman Empire and destroyed it from within.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2020 at 12:48 PM, mwc said:

     I'm busy watching you post your paranoid delusions.  If anything I think what I imagined is far more likely.

 

     What your religious status has to do with anything I have no idea so I'm not sure why you bother to mention it?  What do I care?  Oh, wait, you seem bothered, dare I say "offended" by the use of "jizz?"  Strange.  Jizz, or "semen" as you put it, offends you.  Because of your religion.  Something you chose.  What if you had no choice in the matter and I still hammered away at you by saying jizz over and over again.  Just jizz this and jizz that.  Jizz, jizz and more jizz.  Lots of cum laden statements.  That sure would suck (is that a pun?) having me around.  It's like I'm just stuck in your throat.  What to do?  Swallow my arguments or spit them out?

 

          mwc

 

 

Woah, message received! I will make no further attempts to take your opinion seriously on any topic relating to black people. Apologies for whatever offense I have caused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bhim, you quoted me above, but completely ignored the essence of the post that the quote was taken from.

 

I have no concern whatever with attaching the "correct" labels to you, Hitler, or anyone else. I certainly don't think you are a Hitler sympathizer, or a white supremacist. I'm very aware that, as you point out, you aren't white. I'm also not interested in trying to portray Hitler, or any other human being for that matter, as being the personification of evil. But this is all neither here nor there.

 

You called Hitler an "alleged white supremacist". I asserted that I've read Mein Kampf (which I have...), and that no allegations are required. Hitler was clearly and admittedly a white supremacist. He also literally carried out genocide in an explicit attempt to enact his white supremacist goals. These are facts, to which you have offered no rebuttal. And, in your words, "facts matter". What you have done is give a single example of Hitler interacting positively with a non-white person. Apparently you hold that this is evidence that he wasn't a bona fide white supremacist. I'm afraid that simply does not cut it. You can be a jerk, and still have been nice to few people. You can dislike mexican food, and still have eaten a taco. And you can help a non-white person, and still be a white supremacist.

 

I'm afraid I must be a bit insistent on this point. Again, as you say, facts matter. Have you read Hitler's writings? My suspicion is that you haven't, because the fact is that they are explicitly white supremacist in nature. Moreover, his actions when in power were completely in accordance with his writings. He was a white supremacist, plain and simple. That's a fact.

 

Note that I have here said nothing whatsoever about appropriate labels, Hitler sympathizers, anyone being the personification evil, evil in general, or even whether Hitler was wrong to be a white supremacist. But the fact is, he was a white supremacist. I don't see how that is arguable.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

@Bhim, you quoted me above, but completely ignored the essence of the post that the quote was taken from.

 

I have no concern whatever with attaching the "correct" labels to you, Hitler, or anyone else. I certainly don't think you are a Hitler sympathizer, or a white supremacist. I'm very aware that, as you point out, you aren't white. I'm also not interested in trying to portray Hitler, or any other human being for that matter, as being the personification of evil. But this is all neither here nor there.

 

You called Hitler an "alleged white supremacist". I asserted that I've read Mein Kampf (which I have...), and that no allegations are required. Hitler was clearly and admittedly a white supremacist. He also literally carried out genocide in an explicit attempt to enact his white supremacist goals. These are facts, to which you have offered no rebuttal. And, in your words, "facts matter". What you have done is give a single example of Hitler interacting positively with a non-white person. Apparently you hold that this is evidence that he wasn't a bona fide white supremacist. I'm afraid that simply does not cut it. You can be a jerk, and still have been nice to few people. You can dislike mexican food, and still have eaten a taco. And you can help a non-white person, and still be a white supremacist.

 

I'm afraid I must be a bit insistent on this point. Again, as you say, facts matter. Have you read Hitler's writings? My suspicion is that you haven't, because the fact is that they are explicitly white supremacist in nature. Moreover, his actions when in power were completely in accordance with his writings. He was a white supremacist, plain and simple. That's a fact.

 

Note that I have here said nothing whatsoever about appropriate labels, Hitler sympathizers, anyone being the personification evil, evil in general, or even whether Hitler was wrong to be a white supremacist. But the fact is, he was a white supremacist. I don't see how that is arguable.   

 

Hi @disillusioned. I apologize if I've misunderstood your earlier post. This is going to be a hard "argument" for me, since I don't have any investment in proving that Hitler was a white supremacist. While I've read Mein Kampf, it was much earlier in my life and I can't claim to be familiar with it to the level that you appear to be. If it is important to you, I'm happy to engage with you on an intellectual journey about Hitler's level of white supremacy. Keep in mind though that I don't have any partisan bias here; I'm not personally invested in defending the reputation of Hitler.

 

Bear in mind the context in which I brought this up: I did so in order to observe that the level of nuance in Hitler's white supremacy, which makes analogies to Black Lives Matter seem reasonably appropriate. Subhas Chandra Bose wasn't the only non-Caucasian to which the Nazi Party offered aid. There were others. My point is that BLM needn't explicitly say "white people are inferior to black people" in order to be comparable to pre-Holocaust Nazis. Like you said, you can be a jerk and still be nice on occasion. To that I would add: you can claim on occasion that you support equality, while still believing in black supremacy. I would observe that since my last post, one prominent black person said that blacks are superior to whites and seems to have suffered no serious employment-related consequences. Like you I am committed to objective truth, and I'm willing to discuss Hitler in depth if you like. But let's not deviate too far from my claim that BLM is a black-supremacist organization and is not very far removed from the spirit of the Nazis. I believe BLM is comprised of evil individuals who will cause us physical harm if we allow their ideology to persist. While I'm happy to discuss Nazis and to defend my factual claims surrounding Hitler, I'd like to focus this discussion on Black Lives Matter to whatever extent possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree @Bhim, this discussion of Hitler is probably a tangent. In principle, I'm interested in a detailed discussion about Hitler, but that would probably best be suited to another thread at another time.

 

I understand your view of BLM as essentially evil. I can't help but point out that you implicitly cede my previous point when you say that you think that they are a "black-supremacist organization", and then insist on comparing them to Nazis because of this. It seems to me that the basis of the comparison is specifically that the Nazis were in fact white supremacists (which you have been holding as a mere allegation up til now...), but I digress. This is a tangent, as has been previously established.

 

As I've said before, there are aspects of the BLM platform which I find disturbing. I do not think they are essentially evil. But you are welcome to your view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

I understand your view of BLM as essentially evil. I can't help but point out that you implicitly cede my previous point when you say that you think that they are a "black-supremacist organization", and then insist on comparing them to Nazis because of this. It seems to me that the basis of the comparison is specifically that the Nazis were in fact white supremacists (which you have been holding as a mere allegation up til now...), but I digress. This is a tangent, as has been previously established.

 

As I've said before, there are aspects of the BLM platform which I find disturbing. I do not think they are essentially evil. But you are welcome to your view.

 

I don't know that this is an entirely accurate depiction of my position. My position is premised on the view that one can dabble in racial supremacy without practicing it in all instances. I would be a fool to ignore Hitler's many comments asserting the superiority of the German people (I wouldn't call it "white" supremacy, since the Ashkenazi Jews he viewed as inferior were also white, but that is neither here nor there). His beliefs also made room for other racial supremacist movements such as Japanese supremacy, and ostensibly Indian supremacy (though the Indian independence movement wasn't based on racial supremacy, as far as I am aware). In some ways, BLM is worse, in that it seeks the dominance of the black race without allowing for other groups to form their own ethnostates. And in some ways it is "tolerant" of other races, since it allows for the participation of whites so long as they poise themselves as inferior to the blacks. As in the case of any historical analogy, this one does not provide a one-to-one mapping. But I think there are similarities between BLM and Nazism that cannot be ignored. I will grant that the prominent difference here is that unlike in the case of the Nazi movement, BLM has widespread support from members of the race that it views as inferior.

 

If I may ask: what aspects of the BLM platform do you find disturbing, and what is the distance metric that you are using to distinguish mild concern from "essential evil?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bhim said:

 

If I may ask: what aspects of the BLM platform do you find disturbing, and what is the distance metric that you are using to distinguish mild concern from "essential evil?"

 

For clarity, when I refer to the BLM platform, I'm basically referring to the belief statements made here.

 

My concern isn't specific to any of the claims made on that webpage; it is more holistic. The theme is very apparently race-based. It is primarily this that I find disturbing. Now, obviously this is intentional on their part. It's a movement that is supposed to be addressing racial issues, so it isn't surprising that their platform is race-based. I also think that it's probably completely to be expected that I find this at least a bit disturbing. That seems to me to be part of the point of the movement. If non-black people were completely comfortable with all aspects of their movement, then they wouldn't be attempting to enact any real change. Change is almost always uncomfortable.

 

When I say that I don't think they are essentially evil, I mean a couple of different things. First, I'm not sure that I believe in evil per se. I don't take an absolutist view of morality. I think actions may be "right" and "wrong" only in the context of a particular moral system. I think moral systems are, generally, socially constructed. When social change is occurring, it is possible (probable?) that dominant moral systems will change as well, so what is meant by "right" and "wrong" will change too. I think it is very easy to conflate "wrong" under a certain moral system with "essentially evil". I understand that on certain moral systems, what they are doing could be properly described as "wrong". On others, it could be described as "right". To call it essentially evil to me means something akin to "absolutely wrong", or "wrong in every possible system". I think it's fairly plain that this may not correctly be said.

 

(Incidentally, this is also why I don't think that it is really fair to judge historical figures according to modern moral standards. It was a different world, a different society, and moral standards were different. But this is a digression. I have a lot more to say about my view of morality as well, but I don't think this is the time or the place.)

 

Relatedly, "evil", to me, seems to suggest that something is essentially wrong, almost in a religious sense. This is similar, in a way, to what I asserted earlier regarding my beliefs about fundamental rights. I am a strong atheist. I do not accept an absolute, divine authority which has the power to confer absolute rights, or to adjudicate good and evil. I think these things are up to us. I do think that some actions are clearly detrimental to human well-being, regardless of the particulars of our moral system. I suppose such actions might be fairly called "evil", but I'm still hesitant about the use of this term as I do not think that this is exactly what it is commonly taken to mean. Either way, though, I don't see that BLM are engaging in activities which are clearly detrimental to human well-being. They are certainly engaging in activities which are bad for some people, but we all do that, every day. Are we all essentially evil? Then the term is meaningless.

 

So I have a certain level of concern, but it doesn't keep me up at night. As I've said before, social change is happening. This is not something which has never happened before. Every time social change happens, people get upset. That's part of the point. I'm not comfortable, entirely, with what they are saying, or with what they are doing, but I don't think they want me to be. And I certainly don't think that my concern entails that they are evil, or even that they are wrong. Much of this is a matter of perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
On 7/23/2020 at 1:38 PM, Bhim said:

It's interesting that you both asked the same question. Not unexpected, but interesting. Let's be clear about the intent behind this question: is the intention here that I must call Hitler a white supremacist, lest I be labeled a Hitler sympathizer?

 

No, I'm questioning that since Hitler clearly espoused the view that the Arayn race was supreme above all other races and since that would ipso fact imply he was a white supremist, why you'd say "alleged".  He clearly believed in the supremacy of the blue eyed, blond haired, white skinned peoples. It's like me saying allegedly Hitler espoused the killing of Jews.

 

On 7/23/2020 at 1:38 PM, Bhim said:

If I fail to attach the appropriate label, am I going to be labeled a white supremacist (despite not even being white), and will my opinions thus be deemed unworthy of consideration?

 

No, you'd have to believe that white people are supreme above all others to be a white supremist wouldn't you? Which for you would be a rather self defeating belief wouldn't it?

 

On 7/23/2020 at 1:38 PM, Bhim said:

I know that you both are thoughtful individuals, and I assume that on an intellectual level you will answer "no" to both questions. But there is certainly a gut reaction to Hitler which requires us to regard him as the personification of evil. I think this is unwise, since it precludes any objective analysis of Hitler, and thus hinders our ability to analyze the historical events which led to his rise.

 

You are telepathic! - I answered no to both without reading this section first.

 

The reason for my question was in all the different circles I've been in (Which does not include white supremist circles), everyone agrees Hitler was a white supremist. So when an educated fellow such as yourself comes along and uses the word "alleged" it makes one do a double take and go WTF?

 

On 7/23/2020 at 1:38 PM, Bhim said:

It pains me to feel I even need to say this, but allow me to assuage any concerns by stating that am no admirer of Hitler.

 

It pains me you think that we might think that you sympathize with Hitler. We are all adults here, we should be able to ask what do you mean without you needing to do a long disclaimer.  I might have been querying your understanding and reasoning, but that doesn't in any why imply I think you hold some other position.

 

On 7/23/2020 at 1:38 PM, Bhim said:

But let's start with the understanding that one can be evil without being a white supremacist.

 

Agree.

 

On 7/23/2020 at 1:38 PM, Bhim said:

By way of example, let me point to the example of Subhas Chandra Bose, whom non-Indians on this forum (which I assume includes everyone but me) will not recognize at all. Long story short, this man was an Indian freedom fighter who sought alliance with the Nazis as a means of removing the British presence from India. He met Hitler personally, and after Hitler new the war effort was in vain, he helped Bose flee to Japan to pursue his cause. To claim that Hitler is a white supremacist is either inconsistent with these historical facts, or perhaps requires us to redefine our understanding of "white supremacy." I don't say this because I have any love of Hitler. I say this because facts matter. If we are to have any discussion about Hitler with the precondition that I come to some specific conclusion about Hitler, then I refuse to participate in such a discussion for the same reason that I refuse to talk to creation scientists. I'm willing to follow the facts where they lead, even if they lead to an understanding that Hitler was evil, but not as committed to the cause of white supremacy as one wishes to believe.

 

None of this invalidates the position that Hitler was a white supremist. The willingness for someone like Hitler to help non white people, probably for his own ends, is not inconsistent with holding a belief that the white race is superior.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

It's funny watching these Aussie's going around about it: 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Hmm not a Trump supporter but he's already poisoned the election by saying things like this. Now his die hard supporters will claim the election results are fraudulent if he loses no matter when its held.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

I've long held that the elections are fluff. I haven't believed in their authenticity, pretty much ever. Until 2016. That's what had me second guessing it. It seems that if it were rigged, it would have been rigged in the direction on just about anyone else, probably a career politician. But that's assumption. It just as well could have been rigged for Trump. 

 

There's been so much tampering with elections by both sides. Mail in voting is just another episode in this trend. But it could be rigged for Trump just as easily as it could be rigged for Biden.  It just depends on who does the best job rigging. The strategies used. If it's going to be a rigged election, well, then it just boils down to who's the best rigger!!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

My big fear for 2020 is that no matter who wins the election, there will be a loud and probably violent element that will refuse to accept the result, fanned on by sections of the media and social media.  The losers will try to burn the place down.  I think we are almost at that point now.  And the Summer Rioters, who would be the most incensed if Trump were to win, are actually making a Trump victory more likely. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

I'd think that if they do the mail-in voting and Trump doesn't win, we may be looking at another Gore - Bush recount situation.....

Link to post
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.