[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Valessa, do you really think that it's more of a problem to not be allowed to be racist on the internet than actual real life harmful racism is?
 
inthesomeday said:
Valessa, do you really think that it's more of a problem to not be allowed to be racist on the internet than actual real life harmful racism is?
Click to expand...
I think you're understating the impact of restricting the ability of people to state their opinion even if it's one that we don't agree with, and overstating the harm done by racist speech online.
 
"All people of x ethnicity should be cleansed" is not an opinion because it is structured like a statement of fact, and can therefore be fundamentally disproven.
 
inthesomeday said:
"All people of x ethnicity should be cleansed" is not an opinion because it is structured like a statement of fact, and can therefore be fundamentally disproven.
Click to expand...
It's not anymore a statement of fact than "We should allow gay people to marry.", "We should allow trans individuals to use the bathroom of their choice.", or "We should make sure Christianity is at the core of our value system." are statements of "fact". It's an opinion stated with an assumed authority that is not actually there.
 
I disagree. Two of those statements are verifiable fact and one is a verifiable falsehood.
 
inthesomeday said:
"All people of x ethnicity should be cleansed" is not an opinion because it is structured like a statement of fact, and can therefore be fundamentally disproven.
Click to expand...
Kinda agree.
Amusingly, radfem promoting putting men in camp is kinda allowed though (of course, nazi have shown they actually CAN do the ugly thing they promote, while radfem tend to be a fringe group of nutjobs without a lot of power, but on principle it's hate speech in both case).
 
People who think men should be cleansed aren't radical or feminist. Anybody who thinks anybody should be cleansed for things they're born with is a reactionary and a fascist.

That being said I consider myself a radical feminist, but because I think the actual institution of patriarchy should be destroyed. I don't think Joe Public the Man is really a part of that though.
 
inthesomeday said:
I disagree. Two of those statements are verifiable fact and one is a verifiable falsehood.
Click to expand...
The irony is of course, that that's just like... your opinion, man.

There's no "fact" about whether gays being allowed to marry, it's an evaluation of pros and cons. We both agree that the pros very much outweigh the cons, but to pretend that that's somehow now a fact and not just two opinions that we hold, is based on... well. Nothing.
 
Well I am assuming a specific morality, I suppose. In the realm of moral relativism it's an opinion simply because morality is an opinion. But I prefer not to stray that far into philosophy when discussing a specific and directly important issue like gay marriage, especially when I can safely assume everyone in the conversation shares basic morality like all people are equal and deserve equality. And if this is the logical given it follows that gay people deserve marriage. Maybe fact isn't the right word but it's the one and only logical conclusion to draw with the given of specific morality.
 
CFC is basically a den of neo-Nazis, though to be fair, many of them are not from the United States.
 
You might agree about equality, but disagree on what "marriage" means and what it serves as an institution and then you've gotten nowhere.
 
inthesomeday said:
Well I am assuming a specific morality, I suppose. In the realm of moral relativism it's an opinion simply because morality is an opinion. But I prefer not to stray that far into philosophy when discussing a specific and directly important issue like gay marriage, especially when I can safely assume everyone in the conversation shares basic morality like all people are equal and deserve equality. And if this is the logical given it follows that gay people deserve marriage. Maybe fact isn't the right word but it's the one and only logical conclusion to draw with the given of specific morality.
Click to expand...
Moral relativism vs. objective morality isn't really the topic, you just have to realize that people who do not agree with your values will come to different conclusions - not accept their morality as "equal" to yours - and you see that you're just uttering an opinion that ultimately comes from your sense of morality, there's nothing "objective" about it, we just accept them as good things, because we agree that the things that brought us to our opinion are things that we want to see in our society.

As such, when a Nazi says "All people of x ethnicity should be cleansed" it is also just him giving his opinion on how society should be. A repugnant statement that thankfully most people would not agree with, but it's still him giving his opinion, not him making a statement of fact. (Although ironically the Nazi is probably too stupid to understand that differentiation. ;))
 
inthesomeday said:
Well I am assuming a specific morality, I suppose. In the realm of moral relativism it's an opinion simply because morality is an opinion. But I prefer not to stray that far into philosophy when discussing a specific and directly important issue like gay marriage, especially when I can safely assume everyone in the conversation shares basic morality like all people are equal and deserve equality. And if this is the logical given it follows that gay people deserve marriage. Maybe fact isn't the right word but it's the one and only logical conclusion to draw with the given of specific morality.
Click to expand...
You can follow a strict morality and still be against gay marriage. Look at the vast majority of practicing Muslims, or evangelical Christians, or orthodox Jews. Being for gay marriage is very much an opinion, not a law of physics. Under many moral codes, gay marriage is imoral.

(I am all for gay marriage, obviously, but I feel like your concept of what is an opinion and what is a moral code are a bit off).
 
CFC has a full rainbow of ideologies and non-ideologies and if you're the type to be offended by something, then the ones that give offense will seem dominant, even if they are in the minority.
 
Last edited:
So everyone keeps saying "well what about morality that hates gay people" and that was pretty much my point with my comment. The general morality I follow is one that believes people are equal, and it is in the context of that morality that gay marriage is a factual right. The only scenario in which this would not be a fact is if there was a fundamental difference of moral values, which I really wouldn't call an opinion either. Such a vastly different concept of humanity and how it should operate is much, much larger than an opinion, and should not be afforded the same tolerance opinions are.

To clarify, my idea of an opinion is "my favorite musical artist is the Coup." This is different not only in scale but also in claim to substance/importance as such a statement like "some humans are better than others."
 
It's reasonable to shorthand "fact" for "shared belief" when discussing what "we should do". As you get older you will find just how different peoples' beliefs really are, but how willing we are to let one another be.
 
inthesomeday said:
So everyone keeps saying "well what about morality that hates gay people" and that was pretty much my point with my comment. The general morality I follow is one that believes people are equal, and it is in the context of that morality that gay marriage is a factual right. The only scenario in which this would not be a fact is if there was a fundamental difference of moral values, which I really wouldn't call an opinion either. Such a vastly different concept of humanity and how it should operate is much, much larger than an opinion, and should not be afforded the same tolerance opinions are.
Click to expand...
No, it's still just opinions. Opinions that are very away from yours, opinions that are not compatible with the set of values that western countries are built upon, but still just opinions.
 
In a situation, then, where any idea, however destructive, is allowed to propagate, so too must be the counter-destructive response to that idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

bene_legionary
Moments of Spontaneity
Replies
1
Views
386
warpus
warpus
A
[vanilla] Leader title changes erratically
Replies
0
Views
37
Actic_Civ
A
aelf
How big is immigration an issue on people's minds (USA and elsewhere)?
51 52 53
Replies
1K
Views
40K
Ordnael
Ordnael
Navelgazer
What are your priorities for Commander Promotions?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
uppi
U
Birdjaguar
Deportation: Millions must go!
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
6K
Cutlass
C
Back
Top Bottom