Not being held hostage by accusations of elitism

[Timsup2nothin]

Did you actually just conflate thoughts/words with violence then use that as a justification to use actual violence against people you disagree with?! Because violence is bad.

This has nothing to do with "people I disagree with." Someone who uses a verbal slur to intimidate isn't someone I "disagree with," they are an aggressor. If they insist on being aggressive then I see no reason not to put them down like a rabid dog. It's a public safety issue.

 

[Ajidica]

There is some truth in that actions shouldn't be avoided because they are "elitist". Decriminalization of homosexuality, legalization of divorce, and so on were largely "elitist" ideas that got forced through in spite of popular disapproval or apathy because it was the right thing to do.

 

[Kyriakos]

This has nothing to do with "people I disagree with." Someone who uses a verbal slur to intimidate isn't someone I "disagree with," they are an aggressor. If they insist on being aggressive then I see no reason not to put them down like a rabid dog. It's a public safety issue.

Well... There is an issue with subjectivity though. We all know that under some conditions a person can feel devastated by words. Not only if it is some racial slur (think of a highschool or smaller kid, being told something against their body or similar).
That said, it is still debatable if physical harm can be an apt response to harmful words, although again we all know that the person using those words may just be betting on staying unharmed.
There isn't really a way to generalize a rule here. Which is also why one gets a smaller punishment if they did a crime under emotional imbalance (including rage or grief).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well... There is an issue with subjectivity though. We all know that under some conditions a person can feel devastated by words. Not only if it is some racial slur (think of a highschool or smaller kid, being told something against their body or similar).
That said, it is still debatable if physical harm can be an apt response to harmful words, although again we all know that the person using those words may just be betting on staying unharmed.

I agree that it is debatable, I just stopped debating it other than on the internet, generally. IRL usually I give people a clear fair warning where I stand on the question. If they then want to bet on staying unharmed that's their choice.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You mean where TF pointed out how the right is full of thin skinned crybabies? How does that relate to violence...other than you playing the internet tough guy in response, of course?

This isn't a comment about who's right or wrong in the "current discussion" (which I've pretty much skimmed over), but I just find the notion of you of all people levelling the accusation of being an "internet tough guy" on anyone highly amusing.

 

[cardgame]

What a contradiction this is. You're essentially saying that "the tolerant people" should not tolerate anything that doesn't fit their narrowly defined worldview, so really the "tolerant ones" are not tolerant at all. They're bigots, according to your statement.

Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. - merriam-webster.com

Stop trying to redefine bigotry. It's not going to happen. Being rude to a racist isn't bigotry, it's fixing bigotry via social shaming and indirect education that it's NOT OKAY.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This isn't a comment about who's right or wrong in the "current discussion" (which I've pretty much skimmed over), but I just find the notion of you of all people levelling the accusation of being an "internet tough guy" on anyone highly amusing.

Why would that be? I'm well aware that no matter how annoying some chump on the internet might be I can't get to them. Civman and his "the lefties are lucky" nonsense is quite different. I'm pretty sure that all he would need to do to "run a lefty out of luck" is step away from his keyboard and out his front door.

 

[civman110]

Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. - merriam-webster.com

Stop trying to redefine bigotry. It's not going to happen. Being rude to a racist isn't bigotry, it's fixing bigotry via social shaming and indirect education that it's NOT OKAY.

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Fixed that for you and it appears bigot has already been re-defined. It's original meaning never included racial or ethnic groups because it's redundant.

 

[cardgame]

You didn't fix anything, you just excluded half the definition.

 

[civman110]

You didn't fix anything, you just excluded half the definition.

Do you understand what opinions and prejudices are? Or is the left so far gone that we have to break down the root meanings of words now?

 

[schlaufuchs]

ITT: civman argues with a dictionary.

 

[innonimatu]

There is some truth in that actions shouldn't be avoided because they are "elitist". Decriminalization of homosexuality, legalization of divorce, and so on were largely "elitist" ideas that got forced through in spite of popular disapproval or apathy because it was the right thing to do.

Sure. But let's not forget that criminalization of homosexuality (one example among many) was also an elitist idea. I suspect you wouldn't have to go much further back to discover that homosexuality, divorce, etc, got a "whatever, not my problem" from most people. Generations of clerics and politicians (and, later on, also journalists) had to keep pushing for the "moral laws" around those.

So do not not also jump into doing stuff just because some supposed virtuous experts say it's good. "Elites" and "plebians" alike can have good and bad ideas.

 

[EnglishEdward]

ITT: civman argues with a dictionary.

Then that dictionary definition is wrong because the brackets indicated that it is primarily applicable to race,
and bigotry can apply where there are differences in education, occupation, religion, sex and sexuality etc.

 

[civman110]

ITT: civman argues with a dictionary.

Owen, I know you're intelligent enough to know what redundant means. No need to be disingenuous.

Then that dictionary definition is wrong because the brackets indicated that it is primarily applicable to race,
and bigotry can apply where there are differences in education, occupation, religion, sex and sexuality etc.

It's any strong opinion or prejudice. That can be about race, gender, economics, preference in music, cars, sports teams, etc.

 

[cardgame]

Do you know what you call someone whois obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions?

Opinionated. Or obstinate. Or even obstinately opinionated. Maybe toss in 'arrogant' or 'conceited' as well. You could even call them stubborn. Not a bigot.

 

[civman110]

Apparently the left is that far gone.

 

[Traitorfish]

ITT: civman argues with a dictionary.

Dictionaries print all words in the same size and font, which is communism.

 

[Angst]

The weird thing about approaching abusive ideas with a strongman attitude is that those ideas conceptualize constructive interaction as weak; this is why they buy into strongmanship, and why Trump and other populists can gather power from this effect.

Sacrificing your constructive listening for strongmanship could be argued as sacrificing something that is integral to good thought, yet it may be the only thing those people respect.

It's very difficult approaching this in a way that makes people smarter.