And you didn’t answer my question. And didn’t adress my points. And I got your point:
There will never be a 100% conversion rate or a complete eradication of anything. Some people will be bigots no matter what, and that’s fine.
You are even admitting there is a limit to this approach. Mind, I am not against having a talk. I am not against having an open mind and guide people to a healthier mindset.
But as you said, there are some who don’t wish to change. And these unwilling people should not be given a platform. Because these unwilling people will poison hearts and form a new KKK or a new Nazi Germany when left unchecked. Words have limits when power has been given to those unwilling people.
Answer me this: Did we stop Nazi Germany with just words? Are words helping in China for the Uyghurs?
Are you for a tyranny that censors people who spew raceism and unbiased hate?
Or are you for a tyranny where you will get a knock on your door for telling the lies of inclusion?
But as you said, there are some who don’t wish to change. And these unwilling people should not be given a platform. Because these unwilling people will poison hearts and form a new KKK or a new Nazi Germany when left unchecked. Words have limits when power has been given to those unwilling people.
I think there are two separate issues being discussed here. The first is should we engage with these people and the second is whether or not we should platform these people.
For the former I think it’s in the best interest of society as a whole to give everybody engagement no matter how vile their views are. Even if we assume there’s a theoretical limit, we can’t determine who will and won’t fall into that category. It took Daryl Davis years to change Roger Kelly’s views about the KKK and racism. Kelly is the type of person that we would assume falls into this category. He was a grand wizard for the KKK, and he had a notorious reputation which is how he climbed the ranks… yet with enough effort and persistence, Davis managed to change his mind. My point is that if we want to effectively decrease bigotry in general, then engaging people in good faith regradless of their views is a path that has proven to work. It is what Davis did, but on a societal scale.
As for the latter, I think there’s inherent value in letting these people express themselves freely. For staters, they have the right to do so. We have to respect our principles and stand by them. If values like freedom of speech really are rights, then they have to apply to everyone no matter what otherwise the whole concept loses meaning because if rights can be taken away at a whim then they’re not rights, they’re privileges. I think that’s a pretty dangerous path to go down. It creates a precedent for those in power to feel comfortable enough to abuse that power to their advantage. That’s what censorship is, it is officials abusing the power given to them to push their agenda. This sounds good when the people we like are in power and they’re censoring the things we don’t like, but politics is not static. Sooner or later, the political makeup of the government will shift. If the government now has people in office that we don’t like, then guess what? They now have the same tools and justifications that the people we like did. If they decide to treat your political views the same way we treat racist views, then they will be coming after you. They will try to censor you. I don’t our society to ever be in that position. That’s why rights must be universal and untouched. No matter how offensive, no matter how controversial, no matter how vile everyone should have their right to free speech fully protected. They sanctity of these rights serve as a line of defense against tyranny. Keep in mind, I’m not talking about private companies or individuals not wanting to platform people, I understand that freedom of association is a thing and I respect it (although as citizens we should adhere to the principles we deem as rights). I’m talking about the government refusing to allow these people to protest or to hold rallies or launch their own media.
Did we stop Nazi Germany with just words?
We didn’t go to war with Germany out of the goodness of our hearts or because of the actions of the Nazi regime. We went to war with because they declared war on us after Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
Are words helping in China for the Uyghurs?
They are actually. Spreading awareness about China’s ethnic cleansing has actually been making a real impact. It has helped put pressure on the CCP, it has helped some people in China see what’s going, it has countered Chinese propaganda, and so on. We could, should, and must do more but talking about what’s happening to the Uyghurs is sure more helpful than saying nothing.
Are you for a tyranny that censors people who spew raceism and unbiased hate?
Or are you for a tyranny where you will get a knock on your door for telling the lies of inclusion?
The tolerance paradox is the original topic here. And your definitely-not-talking-down-‘I hate brain damaged American progressives’ response introduced the topics of authoritarianism and censorship from your interpretation of the paradox. The original post was not about those things. It was about not giving bigots a place on this platform. And proposed that they should not be given any platform at all.
Sure, my first response to you was a bit overboard and unnecessarily antagonistic. And you might have tried returning the energy of the original response in turn. I perceived your energy from the ‘brain damaged’-response, and tried to reflect it back. I might have overshot the intensity of it.
Furthermore, I never said the war with the Nazis was started for humanitarian reasons; I said it was needed. I am not going to diminish the efforts of the resistance movements. Even when America decided not to join the war, it would have resulted in an armed uprising. I am just grateful for the sacrifices that were made for me to live in a society that allows free speech but knows the consequences of not doing anything to stop bigotry. We engage, I engage, I keep an open mind, and I talk to people. We encourage people to sort out their anger issues and misgivings. But at some point, our tolerance runs out. At some point, the social contract is broken, and a persistent bigot should not be given the luxury of tolerance.
Where I live, if what I wrote in my original reply was written with full earnestness and I kept trying to spread those words, I would face consequences. Escalating consequences if I were not willing to change. Engagement is not in question here. There will be engagements. First within the community, then with consultants, and finally within a court of law.
If you ask the bigots here, they will say that we are already living in a ‘tyranny of inclusion’. The constitution of my country has it written in its first article that discrimination on grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any other basis is prohibited. And I don’t think I live in an authoritarian state. Sure, I might suffer from the ‘fish in the pond’ perspective. Still, I wanted to point out that the ‘false dichotomy’ is a perspective issue. But I hope we can all agree that the alternative is much, much worse.
I tried guessing your location. Your responses of ‘they declared war on us […] Pearl Harbor’ and ‘brain damaged American progressives’ had me confused. So I looked at your comment history. And you are really not practicing what you preach. You keep invoking Daryl Davis as the saint of engagement, and you keep preaching about not talking down to people. I think that is all just self-serving nonsense now. All that so you can keep the engagement to talk down on people. Because the ‘brain damage’ you used here is not the first. And reading through some ‘[this is] subhuman trash’ responses makes me think you are not that open-minded yourself.
So this will be my last reply on this subject. You can count it as a win if it pleases you. Have fun; I won’t be seeing you.
And you didn’t answer my question. And didn’t adress my points. And I got your point:
You are even admitting there is a limit to this approach. Mind, I am not against having a talk. I am not against having an open mind and guide people to a healthier mindset.
But as you said, there are some who don’t wish to change. And these unwilling people should not be given a platform. Because these unwilling people will poison hearts and form a new KKK or a new Nazi Germany when left unchecked. Words have limits when power has been given to those unwilling people.
Answer me this: Did we stop Nazi Germany with just words? Are words helping in China for the Uyghurs?
Are you for a tyranny that censors people who spew raceism and unbiased hate?
Or are you for a tyranny where you will get a knock on your door for telling the lies of inclusion?
I think there are two separate issues being discussed here. The first is should we engage with these people and the second is whether or not we should platform these people.
For the former I think it’s in the best interest of society as a whole to give everybody engagement no matter how vile their views are. Even if we assume there’s a theoretical limit, we can’t determine who will and won’t fall into that category. It took Daryl Davis years to change Roger Kelly’s views about the KKK and racism. Kelly is the type of person that we would assume falls into this category. He was a grand wizard for the KKK, and he had a notorious reputation which is how he climbed the ranks… yet with enough effort and persistence, Davis managed to change his mind. My point is that if we want to effectively decrease bigotry in general, then engaging people in good faith regradless of their views is a path that has proven to work. It is what Davis did, but on a societal scale.
As for the latter, I think there’s inherent value in letting these people express themselves freely. For staters, they have the right to do so. We have to respect our principles and stand by them. If values like freedom of speech really are rights, then they have to apply to everyone no matter what otherwise the whole concept loses meaning because if rights can be taken away at a whim then they’re not rights, they’re privileges. I think that’s a pretty dangerous path to go down. It creates a precedent for those in power to feel comfortable enough to abuse that power to their advantage. That’s what censorship is, it is officials abusing the power given to them to push their agenda. This sounds good when the people we like are in power and they’re censoring the things we don’t like, but politics is not static. Sooner or later, the political makeup of the government will shift. If the government now has people in office that we don’t like, then guess what? They now have the same tools and justifications that the people we like did. If they decide to treat your political views the same way we treat racist views, then they will be coming after you. They will try to censor you. I don’t our society to ever be in that position. That’s why rights must be universal and untouched. No matter how offensive, no matter how controversial, no matter how vile everyone should have their right to free speech fully protected. They sanctity of these rights serve as a line of defense against tyranny. Keep in mind, I’m not talking about private companies or individuals not wanting to platform people, I understand that freedom of association is a thing and I respect it (although as citizens we should adhere to the principles we deem as rights). I’m talking about the government refusing to allow these people to protest or to hold rallies or launch their own media.
We didn’t go to war with Germany out of the goodness of our hearts or because of the actions of the Nazi regime. We went to war with because they declared war on us after Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
They are actually. Spreading awareness about China’s ethnic cleansing has actually been making a real impact. It has helped put pressure on the CCP, it has helped some people in China see what’s going, it has countered Chinese propaganda, and so on. We could, should, and must do more but talking about what’s happening to the Uyghurs is sure more helpful than saying nothing.
False dichotomy, I’m against both.
The tolerance paradox is the original topic here. And your definitely-not-talking-down-‘I hate brain damaged American progressives’ response introduced the topics of authoritarianism and censorship from your interpretation of the paradox. The original post was not about those things. It was about not giving bigots a place on this platform. And proposed that they should not be given any platform at all.
Sure, my first response to you was a bit overboard and unnecessarily antagonistic. And you might have tried returning the energy of the original response in turn. I perceived your energy from the ‘brain damaged’-response, and tried to reflect it back. I might have overshot the intensity of it.
Furthermore, I never said the war with the Nazis was started for humanitarian reasons; I said it was needed. I am not going to diminish the efforts of the resistance movements. Even when America decided not to join the war, it would have resulted in an armed uprising. I am just grateful for the sacrifices that were made for me to live in a society that allows free speech but knows the consequences of not doing anything to stop bigotry. We engage, I engage, I keep an open mind, and I talk to people. We encourage people to sort out their anger issues and misgivings. But at some point, our tolerance runs out. At some point, the social contract is broken, and a persistent bigot should not be given the luxury of tolerance.
Where I live, if what I wrote in my original reply was written with full earnestness and I kept trying to spread those words, I would face consequences. Escalating consequences if I were not willing to change. Engagement is not in question here. There will be engagements. First within the community, then with consultants, and finally within a court of law.
If you ask the bigots here, they will say that we are already living in a ‘tyranny of inclusion’. The constitution of my country has it written in its first article that discrimination on grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any other basis is prohibited. And I don’t think I live in an authoritarian state. Sure, I might suffer from the ‘fish in the pond’ perspective. Still, I wanted to point out that the ‘false dichotomy’ is a perspective issue. But I hope we can all agree that the alternative is much, much worse.
I tried guessing your location. Your responses of ‘they declared war on us […] Pearl Harbor’ and ‘brain damaged American progressives’ had me confused. So I looked at your comment history. And you are really not practicing what you preach. You keep invoking Daryl Davis as the saint of engagement, and you keep preaching about not talking down to people. I think that is all just self-serving nonsense now. All that so you can keep the engagement to talk down on people. Because the ‘brain damage’ you used here is not the first. And reading through some ‘[this is] subhuman trash’ responses makes me think you are not that open-minded yourself.
So this will be my last reply on this subject. You can count it as a win if it pleases you. Have fun; I won’t be seeing you.