SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It has been a little while now that this fledgling community has been around and it remains one of my favorite stories about communities. A splinter of a much larger community took it upon themselves to challenge the rest and make a move to a new home. Shedding the shackles that were being placed on them was a bold move, but one that has been fantastic.
The community here is great, but here is my question. Overall, we are amazingly tolerant of others, of the choices they make, and of their beliefs. I would then be curious, if we are such a tolerant group, how do we address intolerance in our ranks? I recently came across what I can only say filled me with pity and sadness. I find it saddening that in this day and age, and especially in this group, there are still such hate-filled people.
But this poses a question: how does a group that is tolerant deal with intolerance within it's ranks? Does our acceptance of others extend to accepting someone that has thoughts and beliefs which are far from the norm within this community, or is there a limit placed on how far from our own values a member of the community may be?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:47PM
Don't generalize? You just did.
He was not in a position to act on his beliefs, as far as anyone knows. Believing marriage should be one man and one woman is not the same as hating gays. I know plenty of people who don't give a damn about what people do in their bedroom but do not want marriage redefined.
CEO of Mozilla is not governor, chief justice of the state supreme court, or even a single legislator among many. He had absolutely no power to affect the legality of gay marriage in his position.
Those were the specific circumstances and the specific issue. Intolerance of that viewpoint and the demonization done to anyone who disagrees with you are so far from tolerance that you need to measure the distance in AUs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:52PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:53PM
But he was in a position to change the employee benefits of same-sex couples that worked for Mozilla.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:00PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:10PM
> Why would he?
While often rationalized, bigotry is not rational.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:19PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:08PM
> Did anyone ask him? No.
Yes, he explicitly refused to explain himself. [cnet.com] Leaving any reasonable person to believe he did it for the same reason everyone else did it, because they don't think gay people deserve to marry, aka bigotry. That you would argue that he's got some super-secret not-bigoted reason to interfere with gay people's lives is the kind of rationalization that demonstrates just how ridiculous your position is.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:16PM
Demonization and bigotry on your part right there. You cannot combat injustice with hatred and expect anything good to come of it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:35PM
> ...we don't have any reason to believe he would have except for the propaganda that painted everyone opposed to gay marriage as hating gays.
He put his own money into a campaign intended to discriminate against gays. We certainly do have reason to believe he'd act on his beliefs... again.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:51PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:15PM
You actually never have answered it.
You've claimed he never acted on his beliefs, which was then belied by the point that he did, in fact, do so, and it was that action that caused the whole scene in the first place.
Then you claimed that "his reasons" were being unfairly attributed, because he'd never been given the opportunity to express what they really were. That, too, was shown to be false.
Then you claimed that, having acted once on his beliefs, whatever they are, is no reason to expect him to act on them again, from a position of authority where doing so could do real damage. That's as much a wild-ass guess as playing the lottery, and crosses far over the border of "naivety." He's offered absolutely no reason that anyone should extend that level of faith in his sense of rational behavior, and (arguably) plenty of reason that no one should.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:05PM
> He was not in a position to act on his beliefs, as far as anyone knows.
Of course he was. The CEO both sets the tone of employee policies as well has final say over specifics.
> Believing marriage should be one man and one woman is not the same as hating gays.
Of course it is.
"Believing marriage should be between people of the same race is not the same as hating black people."
As anyone else reading along can see, "don't hate, educate" doesn't work. The best anyone can expect is to use people like you as a foil to expose the poor logic used to rationalize bigotry. But sometimes that is too demoralizing.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:14PM
I'm pro-gay-marriage, dipshit, or rather I'm opposed to saying the government has the right to say they can't. I simply do not demonize people who believe other than I do and allow that they may have a perfectly reasonable position.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:30PM
> I'm pro-gay-marriage, dipshit, or rather I'm opposed to saying the government has the right to say they can't.
I'm pro equal rights, dipshit, or rather I'm opposed to saying the government has the right to stop discrimination.
> I simply do not demonize people who believe other than I do and allow that they may have a perfectly reasonable position.
I simply do not demonize the KKK and allow that they may have a perfectly reasonable position.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:31PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:37PM
> And there's that demonization again. It's a lot easier to hate than think, isn't it?
The KKK holds that miscegenation is against the bible. You haven't even tried to demonstrate how that is any different from those who hold that gay marriage is against the bible.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:48PM
I've no need to. It wasn't my point. My point is you're unwilling to tolerate a viewpoint different than your own long enough to consider the possibility that people can think differently than you without being evil incarnate.
And since you've done such a masterful job of that for me, allow me to say thank you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:55PM
>I've no need to. It wasn't my point.
However, it was my point. That you can't reconcile the contradiction demonstrates the hypocrisy of your position. That's how analogies work.
> My point is you're unwilling to tolerate a viewpoint different than your own long enough to consider the possibility that people can think differently than you without being evil incarnate.
Yes, that is the point. It is wrong to promote inequality, ergo anyone who promotes inequality is wrong. They may do it out of ignorance but they are still doing evil. Nothing hypocritical about that position.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:13PM
Sooooo close there. Now if we can get you to consider the possibility that he did it out of ignorance, and therefore it was wrong to metaphorically lynch the guy without knowing, we could make a rational human being of you yet.
Truth be known there are plenty of other reasons, quite rational and not requiring hatred, for his position but that's for another discussion. To dissect an analogy is to miss the point it was intended to make.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:25PM
> Now if we can get you to consider the possibility that he did it out of ignorance,
> and therefore it was wrong to metaphorically lynch the guy without knowing,
Yes, there should be no consequences for thoughtlessly hurting people.
> Truth be known there are plenty of other reasons, quite rational and not requiring hatred,
> for his position but that's for another discussion.
Bigotry is always rationalized. No one says "I think we should treat some people like shit for no reason whatsoever." In fact, I'm going to challenge you cite just one example of societally accepted discrimination for which the proponents just said "We just hate them, no reason, we just hate them, so fuck'em!" Sure, there is the occasional dumb-as-rocks tribalist who is mentally incapable of coming up with a rationalization, but any organized bigotry will have a whole host of "quite rational" reasons to justify their discrimination.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:38PM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:42PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:50PM
> I'm quite enjoying myself demonstrating hypocrisy.
FTFY.
To say that you believe in equal rights but think it is reasonable for people to be against equal rights is hypocrisy.
To say that you don't think the government should have the ability to stop gay marriage but think it is reasonable for people to use government to try to stop gay marriage is hypocrisy.
(Score: 3) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:05PM
I think it's possible for someone to be either factually wrong or morally incorrect and still be a reasonable person with a right to believe any damned fool thing they like and act in accordance with that. Anything else is advocation of fascist thought policing.
Witness how I argue with your hatemongering self instead of advocating you and your ilk be banned. Ever the optimist, I hold out hope that if not you then someone reading this will be coaxed from darkness and hatred into the light of reason and tolerance.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:11PM
> a right to believe any damned fool thing they like and act in accordance with that.
Then here we completely differ. An opinion is not a right, it is a responsibility and acting on that opinion in a way that deliberately and explicitly hurts others is absolutely untenable.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:24PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:28PM
> I simply will never be arrogant enough to say I am the one true arbiter of what is right.
But you are arrogant enough to say that you are the one true arbiter of what is wrong.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:52PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:58PM
> Oh no, I'm not the one true arbiter of anything.
Clearly you think you are the one true arbiter, else you wouldn't have complained about being demonized. If the KKK is bad enough that any comparison of their beliefs to your beliefs is demonization then you are explicitly making a judgment. You just disagree with me about where to draw the line.
> Also, I'm more Machiavellian than that.
Surprise, you are a foil
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:12PM
There's a difference between complaining and pointing out the hypocrisy of bigots complaining about bigotry.
I disagree with you on how to handle conflicts in beliefs. I would not fire someone for being a Klan member, I would simply adjust my opinion of their intelligence accordingly.
I believe in freedom for assholes to be assholes because the minute we lose that freedom, any other right can be taken simply by calling you an asshole for wanting to keep it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:15PM
> I disagree with you on how to handle conflicts in beliefs. I would not fire someone for being a Klan member,
> I would simply adjust my opinion of their intelligence accordingly.
You seem to be trying to make an analogy. Let's make it more accurate.
Should a klan member be CEO of a company with black employees?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:33PM
Nope, I threw you a bone in yours so I could bring this up. You really, really seem to want to talk Klan. It's not a bad tactic; it brings up plenty of old hatred and gets you probably 50% of the people instantly on your side. Problem is, I'm not biting. It's just a way to spread more hate by false association.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:46PM
> I'm not biting. It's just a way to spread more hate by false association.
If it is a false association, explain why it is false.
The klan deems one group of people to be unworthy of equal rights.
Anti-gay marriage people deem another group of people to be unworthy of equal rights.
An unsupported declaration that the analogy is false is the kind of cop-out that comes from cognitive dissonance.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:57PM
You should probably look up cognitive dissonance else I'll end up quoting Inigo Montoya at you and nobody would enjoy that.
The analogy is fine if your goal is falsely associating racism with not being a gay rights cheerleader. You're not asking for an open mind or the indifference that true equality manifests as, you're asking for cheerleaders and calling everyone else bigots. You're wanting to associate something most people agree on to this issue where you are in the minority. It's not a bad tactic, it's just too transparent a ploy for your current audience.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:11PM
> The analogy is fine if your goal is falsely associating racism with not being a gay rights cheerleader.
The fact that an obvious case of discrimination has powerful connotations is not an argument against it being an accurate analogy to another form of discrimination.
> You're wanting to associate something most people agree on to this issue where you are in the minority.
Yeah, that's the entire point of an analogy - to show that a principle everybody agrees on applies in a situation that not everybody has figured out yet. In other words, if A is true and B is very much like A then B is also true.
The only point you've even come close to making is that comparing the kkk to prop-8 is a difference in degree but not in kind. Explain why there is a difference in kind or concede.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:07PM
Should a klan member be CEO of a company with black employees?
Yes, if he is otherwise qualified. Here is why.
Opinions are not binary. You cannot say that a KKK member is racist, but a random stranger in the street - who is not a card-carrying KKK member - is not a racist. Obviously, that stranger can be far more racist than ten KKK members taken together.
So there is no objective criteria for declaring someone a racist. There is no even clear understanding what a racist is. Take, for example, a man who proclaims that black people are superior. Can he, in your test, be a CEO of a company with black and white employees? Is he a racist, BTW?
The requirement that you propose would result in elimination of all CEOs because the only acceptable candidate would have to be ignorant of social issues and have no opinion on extremely important subjects. How such a candidate can be a good CEO? He'd make a good janitor in a church, at most. CEOs are expected to have an opinion on everything that occurs within the company, and then on a dood deal of stuff that occurs externally to it. Every CEO just has to have a bunch of opinions that you would find displeasing if you only knew them, unless everything in the company is perfect. You can hold the CEO responsible for wrongful actions, but not for wrongful thoughts. It's not 1984 yet; but it concerns me that so many modern thinkers belive that there ought to be arrest and punishment for thoughtcrimes.
I read through most of the discussion, and what strikes me is that 99% of comments discuss punishment for EF's crime... but hardly any posts discuss the crime itself. Such as, what is exactly wrong with EF's rant, and why exactly his statements are incorrect. This is the attitude of a lyhcn mob, not of a fair judge in a courtroom. Compare to the episode of witch-burning in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:22PM
> You cannot say that a KKK member is racist, but a random stranger in the street - who is not a card-carrying
> KKK member - is not a racist. Obviously, that stranger can be far more racist than ten KKK members taken together.
What? Are you seriously arguing that we should ignore someone's explicit racism because we can't know what is in the secret hearts of people who have not demonstrated any racism? Really? You think that's logical?
We should hire NAMBLA members to be pre-school teachers because of all those pedos who haven't joined NAMBLA.
> Take, for example, a man who proclaims that black people are superior. Can he, in your test, be a CEO of
> a company with black and white employees? Is he a racist, BTW?
Of course that's racism and no, he shouldn't be put in a position of power over non-black people. The key here is that in an egalitarian society demonstrated bigotry is a disqualifer for being given power over those you've demonstrated your bigotry towards.
> EF's crime
Whatever he wrote was TLDR for me, don't really care because he has no power.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:50PM
Whatever he wrote was TLDR for me, don't really care because he has no power.
Why then do you think he wrote something racist? A judge has to learn what the accused actually did. Or, perhaps, we should follow the method below?
Are you seriously arguing that we should ignore someone's explicit racism because we can't know what is in the secret hearts of people who have not demonstrated any racism?
No; you simply cannot give preference to the stranger. As I said, he could be more racist than a random, barely involved, KKK member. You don't know what is in his heart; but lack of knowledge does not amount to lack of guilt. If you want to be fair, you have to apply the same yardstick to both candidates.
We should hire NAMBLA members to be pre-school teachers because of all those pedos who haven't joined NAMBLA.
So pedos drop membership in NAMBLA. Now what? Hint: judge people by what they do. Order a background check if you have to. NAMBLA membership will be detected as a red flag; but so will be a bunch of other activities that correlate with pedophiles. If in doubt, reject.
Of course that's racism and no, he shouldn't be put in a position of power over non-black people.
OK. But notice that black racism is accepted by the society. There are many "black $_" but no "white $_" for any value of $_. Is this fair?
But my point there was that you cannot find anyone on this planet who is/was absolutely devoid of any racist thought at any time of his life, even if later on they realized that race and being a good person are not the same.
Since you haven't read the EF's rant, there is only one racist sentence in it, at the very end. The rest of the rant applies to citizens of Mexico, regardless of their genetic makeup. This is why I asked about the specific crime that EF is accused of. You could do s/Mexican/Canadian/g and it would be the same rant. I am afraid that many, like you, haven't taken time to read through the piece. But it's your duty if you want to be a judge.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday April 14 2014, @12:01AM
> Why then do you think he wrote something racist?
I have no opinion on what he wrote because I haven't read it and I am particularly interested because he has no power.
> No; you simply cannot give preference to the stranger.
That philosophy is so ridiculously nonsensical - demonstrated failure of fitness for the position is a disqualifer, full stop.
> OK. But notice that black racism is accepted by the society
Sure, because when you are racist but you don't have the power to systemically apply that racism, nobody gives a shit. The key here is POWER. Whenever you talk about bigotry, you must consider the balance of power. If you don't consider power, then you're just playing word games and not looking at how the racism affects real people.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday April 14 2014, @12:13AM
because when you are racist but you don't have the power to systemically apply that racism, nobody gives a shit
I strongly disagree here. Racism is a state of mind, and an afflicted person is dangerous. A single racist will beat you up in the street because you are wearing wrong color of skin. A group of racists will kill you and dispose of the body. A team of racists in power can start a World War.
As an analogy, you probably wouldn't be OK with a 20 y/o man who loves to talk about walking into his old school and shooting everyone inside. You wouldn't say "Nah, he has no gun, it's safe." Why then do you say "Nah, he is a racist, and he would oppress another race, but it's OK because he can't do it right now."
In that vein, what makes you think that EF has no power? I, personally, have no clue who he is. What if he is a mayor of some city, or a Police Chief, for example? Even being a shift supervisor at a poultry plant is enough to practice racism. I'd say all of us have enough power to be dangerous to others if we want to.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday April 14 2014, @12:14AM
> I strongly disagree here. Racism is a state of mind, and an afflicted person is dangerous.
Your entire point is based on ascribing power to individuals that they generally do not have. When they clearly have some power, then we can cross that bridge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:19PM
>Believing marriage should be one man and one woman is not the same as hating gays. -The Mighty Buzzard
>>Of course it is. -Angry jesus
>>"Believing marriage should be between people of the same race is not the same as hating black people." -Angry jesus
I don't think "the same" means what you think it means...
>>As anyone else reading along can see, "don't hate, educate" doesn't work. The best anyone can expect is to use people like you as a foil to expose the poor logic used to rationalize bigotry. But sometimes that is too demoralizing. -Angry jesus
Your conclusions are not logical, and you are the foil. Do you have no sense of irony?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @01:02AM
If $$==free speech, then yes he does/did have to ability to act on his beliefs. Whether it's his or effecting an employees salary.