Fair enough
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How bad is the anti-trans movement going to get?
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Nothing I posted here has categorically equated civility with "appeasement." Let's go back to what I actually said, not how you described it:
But expressing certain heinous views, such as support for genocide, arguably is. Otherwise the word is focused only on style over substance. I suppose one could narrow down the usage such that the word describes conduct in discussions, rather than the substance of the beliefs, and then further say that advocating genocide isn't necessarily "uncivil" while using a bad word or two is "uncivil."
Needless to say, I doubt such a diluted and superficial definition of "civility" would have much utility anywhere outside a few recesses of the internet.
I generally tend to feel similarly negatively about libertarianism, but I still engage you in discussions. I have also done the same with a lot of Islamists, fundamentalist Christians, and others whose views are diametrically opposed to mine.
It's a personal choice. I won't angrily cuss at libertarians, Islamists, or MAGA Republicans, but I realize my engagement is strictly a personal choice. The same goes for your engagement with socialists.
If I disliked you, you would be able to tell quite easily. But here we are, moving back and forth between discussions like these to joke threads. That should further demonstrate that your earlier description of my position is both incomplete and inaccurate.
What you're proposing—engaging neo-Nazis instead of condemning or banning their hate speech—isn't always a change for the better. Sometimes it merely enables such beliefs to spread and cause significant harm.
Only a fraction of the people whose beliefs I oppose would end up running afoul of hate speech laws. You wouldn't be arrested in the Netherlands or Sweden for your libertarianism, but a vocal, publicly preaching neo-Nazi could be.
It's not about who I oppose; it's about incitement and hate speech that cause or have caused measurable harm.
The US definitely isn't Germany or most of northern and western Europe for that matter. It's faring much worse in multiple ways relating to quality of life and freedom.
Regardless, I'm not proposing an actual legal change concerning hate speech in the US, since I know that probably won't happen. I'm just expressing my perspective on what I think would be best and most minimizing of harm.
Your support for socialism replacing capitalism is even
more heinous because of the oppression of the entire
populace. But I show you tolerance, & try to reason
with you. (No success yet, but I have hope.)
I catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.
Well, that's how you see socialism because you seem to equate all varieties thereof with Marxism-Leninism, so it's nothing I can help with.
Notice that discussions require two or more people who are willing to converse. This is a two-way street.
If you give yourself credit for that, you should do the same for me instead of describing my stance in a way that I have pointed out was both inaccurate and particularly uncharitable.
How bad is the anti-trans movement (or the anti-this, anti-that movements) going to get? It can get bad to the point of the subjects of all the anti-isms eventually losing basic American freedoms.
It is often said that governmental legislation should not be influenced by religion. I think that it's equally bad when science is misused by politicians for the purpose of governmental legislation. I think that Neil deGrasse Tyson was attempting to get this message across to his conservative interviewer (with limited success), in his response on the subject of transgenderism.
Neil deGrasse Tyson basically stated that it shouldn't overly concern people whether science ultimately says that there is a biological or a psychological reason behind transgendering. When he asked his conservative interviewer: "What is your motivation?" (for asking the reason), and Dr. Tyson was asked in return by the interviewer: "Why does my motivation matter?", Dr. Tyson responded: "It matters because if you have political power you could end up creating legislation that subtracts freedoms from people who previously were enjoying the same freedoms as you. The history of that exercise doesn't end well."
I'll post the video below for those who want to watch it, but I am also posting a transcript excerpt from the interview of what Dr. Tyson had to say. The ellipses ("...") in the transcript are where Dr. Tyson's conservative interviewer chose to interrupt him while Dr. Tyson was speaking:
"People who want rights are always fighting others who are saying they don't get the rights from the Constitution. This is a daily challenge on the progressive left. It is a daily challenge. Right, here's an example: I forgot how I ended up getting this phone call -- it was some magazine that serves the gay community and...they wanted my opinion on...whether being gay was biological or...psychological. And I said I don't care which it is. Find out what it is, fine, but the answer to that question should have no consequence on legislations or laws because, for example, suppose it says it's purely biological? Okay, then you say: 'Oh, that explains it.' Let's suppose it says it's purely psychological? What are you going to do now? I say, well now you can go to the re-orientation camps or whatever those are called where they realign you because they say it's psychological rather than biological. All of a sudden people start behaving in ways in society that want to constrict the freedom of expression of who and what people are, and that is a danger. So maybe there needs to be a line in the sand. Let science do what it does, but politicians keep us free. Yet there's so many politicians that are doing the opposite of that."
It is often said that governmental legislation should not be influenced by religion. I think that it's equally bad when science is misused by politicians for the purpose of governmental legislation. I think that Neil deGrasse Tyson was attempting to get this message across to his conservative interviewer (with limited success), in his response on the subject of transgenderism.
Neil deGrasse Tyson basically stated that it shouldn't overly concern people whether science ultimately says that there is a biological or a psychological reason behind transgendering. When he asked his conservative interviewer: "What is your motivation?" (for asking the reason), and Dr. Tyson was asked in return by the interviewer: "Why does my motivation matter?", Dr. Tyson responded: "It matters because if you have political power you could end up creating legislation that subtracts freedoms from people who previously were enjoying the same freedoms as you. The history of that exercise doesn't end well."
I'll post the video below for those who want to watch it, but I am also posting a transcript excerpt from the interview of what Dr. Tyson had to say. The ellipses ("...") in the transcript are where Dr. Tyson's conservative interviewer chose to interrupt him while Dr. Tyson was speaking:
"People who want rights are always fighting others who are saying they don't get the rights from the Constitution. This is a daily challenge on the progressive left. It is a daily challenge. Right, here's an example: I forgot how I ended up getting this phone call -- it was some magazine that serves the gay community and...they wanted my opinion on...whether being gay was biological or...psychological. And I said I don't care which it is. Find out what it is, fine, but the answer to that question should have no consequence on legislations or laws because, for example, suppose it says it's purely biological? Okay, then you say: 'Oh, that explains it.' Let's suppose it says it's purely psychological? What are you going to do now? I say, well now you can go to the re-orientation camps or whatever those are called where they realign you because they say it's psychological rather than biological. All of a sudden people start behaving in ways in society that want to constrict the freedom of expression of who and what people are, and that is a danger. So maybe there needs to be a line in the sand. Let science do what it does, but politicians keep us free. Yet there's so many politicians that are doing the opposite of that."
You're missing the point that even though you
have evil views, I still favor peaceful persuasion.
Of course.
I strive for accuracy. Do you?
And I'm quite charitable, despite your advocacy
for oppression & economic failure.
Most on this forum do, including socialists. How many here have refused to discuss socialism with you?
Yes. If you strive for accuracy, hopefully that means you're willing to reconsider how you describe others' positions when they point out to you that your description was inaccurate.
Hey, it's only fair considering my charity toward advocacy of American libertarianism and other views that are polar opposites of mine. As I said, it's a two-way street.
See....you can use in peaceful persuasion with
people who hold views you find reprehensible.
If you can control your rage against libertarians,
then you can do so with Nazis too.
BTW, I don't favor "American" libertarianism.
Just libertarianism. Is your socialism "Egyptian
socialism"?
In my opinion, it is definitely going to get worse as we head into the next election season. It is working well to rev up the fundamentalist, right-wing base. I suspect, in fact, that many right-wing politicians desperately fear that while winning won't be easy -- it would be totally impossible if they angered the base, and they are going to go all out to avoid what could be a real rout.
Honestly we seem to needlessly tie ourselves in knots on some things, due to political positions. I'm not sure why.
1) Advocating for violence is problematic and illegal.
2) Committing violence even moreso.
I could care less if the motivation is left or right. These things should be condemned and prosecuted.
1) Advocating for violence is problematic and illegal.
2) Committing violence even moreso.
I could care less if the motivation is left or right. These things should be condemned and prosecuted.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
No, hate speech erodes freedom. It's antithetical to it.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
This position is completely absurd. People get into positions of power because they seek out positions of power. The ones who maintain those positions of power are the ones who are motivated to keep them.
Our laws are proposed and passed by the people in power. They're not going to let you pass legislation that undermines their power in any significant way. They're actively motivated to prevent you from doing that.
Most laws are put into place and enforced as a way of perpetuating the dynasty of people in power. Some of them help everyday citizens, but if you look at any book of laws you'll find the most substantial portions cover financial and property crimes that mostly only matter to corporations.
No, hate speech is not subjective, and many countries have successfully outlawed it.
If you can't even admit the possibility, why waste my time replying with your total lack of perspective?
This is outright false, but nice try.
The KKK still exists. Nobody brought it down. And it still has police officers in its membership. The only thing that's really changed is that there's more diversity in white nationalist groups and even the KKK rarely goes around wearing ceremonial robes anymore.
No, it doesn't. History tells us that violence is the only source of political power and that those who hold a monopoly on violence hold a monopoly on power, and that speech is worthless without action. "Justice" just has a habit of being defined by the winners
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I was sarcastic.
Thankfully, I haven't had the pleasure of encountering any Nazis, so I'll decide how to cross that bridge when or if I get to it.
Such labels generally tend to differ from country to country. From what I have seen (in my admittedly limited experience), self-identified libertarians from the US tend to be for even less regulation than many counterparts elsewhere. That's why I said "American libertarianism."
My socialism isn't Egyptian, but there are indeed Egyptian and Arab varieties of socialism:
Nasserism - Wikipedia
Arab socialism - Wikipedia
Ba'athism - Wikipedia
Nasserism is the Egyptian one. All of the above were laced with nationalism and tyranny, and they had very limited, if any, Marxist influences. Generally, they worked out quite badly in addition to having a lot of ideas with which I strongly disagree. So no, my socialism isn't an Egyptian type.
You know a poster here who once was one.
I noticed that you weren't hostile towards them.
The poster changed (for the better IMO).
On what basis do you make that claim?
Do you think I'm an "Amerian libertarian" as opposed to "libertarian"?
You've said that you oppose libertarianism. Perhaps this
induces seeing only extremism, & not moderate aspects.
Eschew dysfunctional polarization.
So you saw a first-hand example that your earlier framing of my approach was inaccurate. Good to know.
As I said: on the basis of my (admittedly limited) experience.
As far as I can see, you're a libertarian with some influences largely specific to the US (e.g., the American legal frameworks of "freedom of speech" and the Second Amendment).
No, it means that overall, I see more downsides than upsides to libertarianism. When it comes to social issues, we probably agree on at least 90%-95% of them (e.g., legalization of same-sex marriage, separation of religion and state, freedom of religion, no blasphemy laws, LGBT rights, etc.).
But since you mentioned this, do you see any moderate aspects to socialism too?
I see a difference between what you did,
& what you advocate against. So you do
somewhat understand what I've been
advocating.
You might investigate more than you have,
& from a perspective of understanding
rather than opposition.
That's vague.
And it offers no comparison to libertarianism elsewhere.
"Sociaism" now includes capitalism.
Your answer lies in my current signature.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Unfortunately many, many Americans want all the freedoms and liberties (for themselves) but none of the responsibilities that come with it.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Do you know even Lenin didn't get rid of money or privatize everything? His NEP too was a mixed economy.
New Economic Policy - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy#cite_note-1
I don't follow Lenin, who offers no authority on economics.Do you know even Lenin didn't get rid of money or privatize everything? His NEP too was a mixed economy.
New Economic Policy - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org