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: 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.