this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
615 points (96.0% liked)
Risa
6852 readers
3 users here now
Star Trek memes and shitposts
Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No we wouldn’t because the solution to the paradox of tolerance is that you can’t be tolerant of intolerance. It’s a social contract, if one party breaks it, the contract is broken.
It's not a contract, because the parties involved didn't all get a chance to agree to it before hand.
The best way to eliminate bigotry, is with unearned compassion. It's certainly more difficult. But it is the highest moral ideal.
Eh..........
This might work at a micro, local scale. But it does not work nationally or even regionally.
One side is rabidly homicidal, public stating they'll kill people who are different from them.
You simply can't love these people to death. Because they will continue to kill while you reason with them.
First. We're talking about bigots, not murders. Those are two separate groups. It's prejudicial to assume all bigots are murders.
Second. You can't "reason" with them, because their position isn't based on reason, but emotion. You simply be kind to them. Be their friend. Let them realize on their own, that __________ aren't all the bad things they imagine.
What do bigots want to have happen to the people they hate?
As someone who grew up in a conservative family in a religious town and is now liberal, there is a wide spectrum of bigots. Some of them would happily enact halocaust 2, and some of them just get nervous when they see a black person on the street at night. I have a number of family members that fall in that later category.
That depends on the bigot.
Some simply don't want to associate with __________.
Some want __________ to live in separate places.
Some want __________ to learn to not be __________.
And many who may want __________ to die, don't want to be the ones who actually do the killing themselves.
It's only a quite small portion of bigots who have killed anyone. Bigotry is a much more common problem than murder.
Absolutely. Go tell all those gay and trans people that they should’ve showed their murderers more compassion.
I’m not saying that what you suggest is impossible, but it’s idealistic and naïve.
Being a murder is different than being a bigot.
I would bet the vast majority of bigots, have never killed anyone.
But a whole lot of them would vote for somebody who has.
Perhaps. But that still wouldn't make them killers.
If someone hands a loaded gun to someone who they believe intends to commit murder, do you believe that they are not a part of the murder committed?
Who is part of what murder? Neither of the people in your scenario has killed anyone yet.
OK, you need to be walked through it every step of the way, then.
Akhil gives a gun to Omar.
Akhil knows Omar hates, to pick a threatened minority at random, gay people, and wants to kill them.
Omar shoots up, let's say, a gay nightclub. In, to pick a city totally at random, Orlando, Florida. And just for funsies, let's call it The Pulse. I'm sure this totally imaginary scenario bears no resemblance to any actual event, and no gay nightclub called The Pulse in Orlando, Florida has ever been shot up by a virulent homophobe named Omar Mateen. Pure imagination.
The judicial system would view Akhil as an accessory to murder in that instance.
Let me further introduce you to the concept of stochastic terrorism. Boy, aren't you learning a lot tonight! I'm happy for you.
Yes I agree with all of that. Person A would be an accessory to murder.
Being an accessory to murder is a different thing than being a murderer. That's why they have different labels. I think you view them as the same? Or are suggesting they are?
Grow the fuck up and stop denying the truth. You're wrong. Just admit it and move on.
Do you have to commit the murder for it to be bad?
I would bet with many the only reason none of them have killed someone is because they would get in trouble with the law, not because they are morally against it.
You can see it in the stories from during the colonial era back when black people weren't considered humans.
That could be possible.
Though going to a time and place where the target group were so "othered" (is that a word) as to not even be human, that removes more mental barriers than simply the law.
Appeasement. That always works.
I'm not talking about appeasement.
You don't have to agree with someone or do what they want, to not shun them. Have you never disagreed with a friend? Did you read the article I linked to?
You're getting downvoted because you seem to be falling to understand that that guy is exceptional in that he is an exception, not the norm.
You realize it wasn't that long ago that black people were hanged for as little as looking at a white person the wrong way at times, yes?
Being super nice isn't a reliable way to accomplish what he has.
Even if it is it's not an option for everyone. A white guy acting like this towards a KKK member isn't going to accomplish this. A Hispanic guy doing it is unlikely to change a racist's opinion on black people.
Your statements come off as Elon Musk telling people to work hard to be rich because it's happened before.
It may be a useful tool in some circumstances, but one guy, or even a handful of them, does not prove it's the "best way".
The first is by definition always an exception. We don't know if they're unique, until others try the same thing.
I never said being super nice was the fix. Being a friend is. It's hard to be bigoted against a group, when one of that group is a good friend. But yes anyone outside the targeted group, won't be able to have quite the same effect. Those outside the group can be helpful though. If a trusted friend points out your short comings, you're more likely to second guess them, or at least not take them as far as you might otherwise.
Except in this case others have already tried the same thing with results going from success to death. It's not unique but it is uncommon. This would speak against it as the "best way".
It's hard to convince someone bigoted against you to be your friend. If they won't be your friend the whole concept fails. This shouldn't need to be stated.
Often bigots closest friends are also bigots. Again causing issue. If one close friend points out your shortcomings but the others tell you they aren't shortcomings at all it's much easier to stick with your comfort zone, as it almost always is. Repeated efforts here cause a friendship to falter, which goes back to what was suggested in the first place, separation.
Friendship works on someone open to it working. Whether they already have that friend or not. You can't force someone to accept something they don't want to hear, which is probably the problem you're having accepting the flaws in your own point of view despite the ways they have been pointed out in other's comments.
From what I'd read in to, you're substituting "best way" for "most moral way" without considering that morality is not a standard. To many reducing harm to the masses is far more moral than making friends with bigots. They can, and must, choose to step outside their bigotry in order to leave it behind. Until then they can deal with being on the fringes.
I am going to pray nobody takes this idiot seriously
Ad hominem
It would be more effective to explain how I'm wrong. But if you can't right now, I understand. My comments will still be here tomorrow.
Disingenuous
You don't seem to be in a state of mind for willing absorbtion of information.
Projection
You never offered any information. What evidence suggests I'm not open to it?
In fact, the closest thing to an argument against the idea that anyone made, is that it doesn't scale well. Which is of course true. But this is about the morality of ways to deal with bigots, not the practically.
Well, I'm glad you at least recognize that your solution to bigotry is not practical. I agree that it's a moral ideal, but morality to my mind depends at least as much on effect as intention, which is where practicality comes in, and the fact that showing "unearned compassion" to bigots, at least in the way I typically seem to see that interpreted, just emboldens them and makes life worse for everyone else. The most extreme example of this is, as alluded to, Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, but we see the same thing play out on a smaller scale frequently.
Most people who discuss morality with any frequency will probably tell you that whether or not you know the outcome of an action ahead of time does impact its morality. So I would argue, because we know that showing bigots "unearned compassion" rather than societally refusing to tolerate their behavior invariably has a net negative impact on those who are the targets of their bigotry, that would render it not the moral ideal we might like it to be.
Please observe the paradox of tolerance.
I suppose I'm marking a difference between tolerating bigots, and tolerating bigotry. Respecting and accepting people with bigoted ideas, is very different from respecting and accepting the ideas themselves. Part of being a friend, is point out when that friend is being dick. That would still hold true here.
I see your problem.
You don't believe people when they tell you who they are. You imagine their actions and their beliefs to be separate from the individual even though they are the beliefs and actions of the individual. Your idealism doesn't reflect reality.
You were never apart from society so you are bound by the social contract by default, failure to uphold the social contract will result in the following violence: being put in the corner, being told 'no', spanking, detention, suspension, loss of employment, physical violence, police arrest, incarceration, garnishing of wages, loss of access to social services, etc.
That's an argument to uphold the analogy of a social contract. Basically arguing it's it fine to be born into a contract you had no choice in. However, that same logic can be used to justify all sorts of terrible things. It goes all the way back to the bible and earlier: Holding the child responsible for the sins of their father.
It doesn't however directly address my claim of moral high ground, for using what I call unearned compassion to win over bigots.
This isn't an argument, it's a fact. The only way to not be part of the social contract is to remove yourself from society, including all of societies infrastructure. You are obligated to support and work within the rules of the society you are a part of. If you object on moral reasons then you can make your attempts to change your society or which society you are part of through whatever means you have access to.
That is all true, as long as you're not using it to justify a moral position. Those are all facts. Well... Not the "social contract" phrase. That's a term of art based on an analogy. But you're salient point is absolutely a fact, and correct. We do agree on that.
But again, it says nothing against the concept I'm trying to promote and argue here. The most moral way to handle a bigot is with compassion, rather then more hatred.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the limitlessness of human belligerence.
Not exactly? I don't think. I think your referring to the belligerence of humanity as a whole. While I'm talking about individual action.
If you personally run across someone bigoted, it would be better for both of you, if you tried to be their friend. It'll help you both see past your different prejudices.
The real bigots don't see past their prejudices, that's why they're bigots.
People can become bigots for a variety of reasons. Many are fully aware of their prejudices, and feel they have justification. Bigots are nearly as diverse as people as the those they dislike.
A worldview that is incompatible with the cooperation of society. If you want to go play apologist for a bigot you might as well be one.
Who's worldview is incompatible? Mine or theirs? Or both?
And who's apologizing? I'm simply point out that they're a diverse group, with diverse motivations.
apologist
/əˈpɒlədʒɪst/
noun
a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial.
'critics said he was an apologist for colonialism'
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, apostle, champion, backer, promoter, campaigner, spokesman, spokeswoman, spokesperson, speaker, arguer, enthusiast
Bruh
Everyone gets automatic entry and can leave any time they want. If they decide they don't agree to it there's nothing keeping them from shrugging off the good graces of society. I think that's pretty fair.
I was in a very bad spot once and one part of it was due to the so called social contract and the demands it put on me as an individual but when I tried to exit the contract I got forced in ward psychiatric care which kind of negates your argument of there being a choice.
Now a days I still have some issues with the social contract but have other things to live for and have managed to come to terms on how to live with it.
Omfg I knew it would be that guy. He’s the guy your type always reps. Maybe read what black anti racist orgs have to say about him. It’s not nearly as nice as what the KKK says.