No, but you replied to GP in defense of "denouncing hatred and bigotry" (something they didn't even argue against) without directly addressing a pretty important point, i.e. dehumanization (which they did).
Was there another way I should have read your comment with that in mind?
I agree that we should be open to vibrant discourse and charitable to outgroups. But that's not what your GP comment actually did. What it did was tell the other person: you're failing to empathize, you have no ability to understand, you can't see a point of view other than your own, you've subscribed to an ideology, you dismiss anything that doesn't share your point of view.
No one on the receiving end of that will feel like they are being met with open, vibrant, charitable discourse! You have to show those qualities, not tell them.
I'm sure your intentions were good—it's just that the mechanics of "vibrant discourse and charitability to outgroups" are trickier than they seem. Nothing is easier than to unintentionally break them without realizing it. Therefore we all need to work hard at it consciously and listen to feedback when we get it wrong. Me most of all.
(btw the second half of your comment was just fine)
Condescension, hubris, hatred - it's clear what you're arguing for. No - what you said isn't normal. But I'm sure you're aren't going to stop arguing for the right to bigotry and hatred.
But if you stick with your principle of making sure you're not on the same side as horrible human beings you've got to abandon supporting the struggle for racial equality.
A strange argument. You could just call out extremely bigoted people, who sometimes sneak into well-intentioned projects in order to get moral cover. where is it written that you have to cede ground to the bigoted person? You allude to this in your final paragraph but frankly, that seems like handwaving rather than really engaging with the issue.
Combating the existence of the horrific is always used to take rights away and leads to something far worse.
Extremely questionable. It seems to me that this justification is often raised in lieu of engaging with a deeply unpleasant subject.
I suppose I am just very weary of a particular style of argument in this debate, which -- in addition to the tactic I called out -- frequently seems to include restating what the other person said as something worse, and then arguing against that restatement. And with all respect, that's what I think is happening here.
The person who wrote "Dehumanization is alive and well, even among progressives" was responding to someone who wrote "But that policy is not even talking about racism, however defined; it's talking about hate. Hate is hate, no matter who it's directed to. Prejudice is prejudice." (That is literally the entirety of their comment.) So at least the way I read this thread, "dehumanization" was introduced as a rhetorical device to equate "prejudice is prejudice" with "dehumanize your opponents."
Given that I'm being downvoted repeatedly, I guess others don't see it that way, but I'm going to be blunt. I just reread the thread and I do not think I'm the one giving things an unfair reading. I don't see a call for "dehumanization" here, and if folks are going to come down on me for failing to address an argument that isn't being made, I don't know what to say. ("Have you stopped beating your wife yet?")
No, I am arguing that everyone can and should do all they can to condemn hatred. That regular people should make sure there are consequences for being a hateful bigot. And that people should not get tricked by "both-sides" bullshit, or empty appeals to "freedom of speech".
Don't be friends with a racist. Make sure they understand their views are not acceptable. Do your part today.
Disagreed. Any form of discrimination or ignorance should be challenged with more dialogue instead of less. Take whatever abhorrent ideological position you can think of and I will tell you that we should discuss it publicly, challenge it publicly, and destroy it intellectually in a public forum.
This has the advantages of:
* the person who held these thoughts outs themselves as a bigot as opposed to being a toxic agent
* a corpus of knowledge how to dispel/combat such positions is formed
* people who may be in the beginning stages of harboring such ideas are either discouraged due to strong public pushback or are helped to realize how wrong that position is
I mean you described it quite well and defended them. I raised an eyebrow and am still unsure even though you’ve said you weren’t one.
It’s kinda like arguing that racism is a fact of life for some and we should allow them to vent their racism in a controlled environment. Hard disagree.
I didn’t bring it up, it was a quote from the article that was being discussed upthread.
I don’t believe in disrespecting anyone because of their beliefs prima facie. It’s how they react to those beliefs being challenged that I find myself losing respect for them over.
It’s like the difference between “suffer the little children, for they know not what they do” and “ whoever hardens their heart falls into trouble”.
Now I can’t speak for the article’s author or the other replies above us, but to me that is the kind of bigotry I have problems with.
In my experience, people who hold beliefs like “black people innately are more criminal” react more immaturely to discussion than people discussing the underpinnings of astrophysics do.
Also note that my spectrum for respect is orthogonal to my spectrum for love/hate. Just because I don’t respect someone due to their beliefs doesn’t necessarily mean I hate them or think they are evil. But I’m less likely to be influenced by their opinions in the future, or to even give them the time to listen to what their opinions are on other things.
I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview; it's a widely accepted and healthy one. In a way, you agree:
> their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were?
Certainly there is a very well-established and long history, and continuing practice, of prejudice in government against (almost any group besides white Christian males, as a shorthand for a long list). There is also now a countervailing force, protecting the freedoms and asserting the interests of the oppressed groups. The existence of both forces can't seriously be questioned.
But going back to my first sentence: Really, that's the fundamental debate going on in this HN thread and in many others: Some assert, implicitly, that the hate groups are just another point of view, and that they are inherently no better or worse than other POVs. Others, including Google, disagree.
Sometimes that argument is made using extreme relativism or political correctness: All POVs have the same merit and deserve equal treatment; it's politically incorrect to discriminate at all. While that's an interesting and valuable philosophical discussion - how do we distinguish perfectly between good and bad - we can and must still distinguish between them. We don't have to wait for the perfect philosophical solution.
But we can approach the question with reason: First, I believe that many (not all) arguing that the hate groups should be heard simply support the hate groups - it has nothing to do with public interest or freedom of speech; probably that's true on the other side too. Second, a more reasoned argument: Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me.
I was indirectly pointing out that the OP had used the first line, not as a statement of belief, but as a token so that they could say the rest of what they actually believe.
Similarly, you say "I'm all for oppressed groups having a safe space and living their lives freely", followed by "but", followed by what you seem to actually believe. Which one of your statements is true?
I agree with some of your points and would like to defend myself in regards to a few others, if you don;t mind.
The ageism bit wasn't a non-sequitur in any way but it was definitely under-explained and I am at fault on that one. I have been at the receiving end a few times ("Why do you want to know that? That's how it has always been done!" and "What would you know? You have barely written your first fizzbuzz!" are just a few examples) and the anguish just happened to pour out. Apologies for not explaining that better in the post but it does not invalidate the existence of the point in any way.
Ply my own bigotry? I am sorry if my post seemed to raise those questions/sentiments but I'd genuinely believe that I was trying to point out something that has troubled me. You, OTOH, without any knowledge of me or my intentions accused me of bigotry. Should I take that as an example of an ad hominem?
As for alan_cx's comment, yes, I am guilty of cherry-picking a part of it. I believe I made that clear in the lead-up but that's no excuse. I'll make amends and edit in the rest of the comment right away. It doesn't make the original comment any better in terms of its jeering nature, IMHO.
Personal attacks? Misrepresentations? Strawmen? I sincerely and unreservedly apologise for for any personal attacks or misrepresentations. I think I just chose to put in some (rather badly) cherry-picked but nonetheless valid examples. However, I know I am not perfect and am definitely prone to mistakes and the occasional exaggeration. If you could please point them out, I will make the necessary corrections immediately.
I repeat, I am not attacking the people of HN at any point in the post. I am ranting against the jeering disguised as criticism. Since all dark clouds have a silver lining, all jeering must have an inherent critical point, too. Should I take it to mean that jeering is now acceptable since it is criticism?
In that case, may I request you to please consider my jeering of HN's snobbish behavior as honest criticism?
I think you were. But honestly I was curious. I wonder when people defend prejudiced things if they’re doing it knowingly or if it’s a subconscious thing. Defending the collective punishment of Jews who were expelled from Spain for something a company did is a pretty wild leap. My comment was my attempt at pointing out the collective punishment of Jews, which was my issue with the OP. I don’t buy your argument that you’re somehow defending proper debate etiquette. The grandparent comment was very openly racist.
When you say the post is disingenuous, you are implying intent on the part of the poster. I don't see that (I don't disagree with your point that the characterization is inaccurate though).
How literal is your meaning when you say "Wow, that's pretty offensive, hate" below? Because I think hatred directed at a bigot is sort of a not very fruitful response to bigotry. In that sense, people being nasty because someone is saying offensive things isn't a huge improvement over people being nasty because someone is mentally ill.
I do see some need to deal with people that are being disruptive (whether intentionally or not), but I don't see much justification to do it with rancor.
So we can never denounce hatred and bigotry without being hypocritical? We don't want to be hypocritical, right? So we should never denounce hatred and bigotry! Brilliant!
I am super, super tired of "if you denounce bigots that makes you just as bad as them."
... the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity. Those asserting this are not providing a reasoned argument, rather they are labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society. To such assertions, I can only respond: “no”.
There are other reasons for opposing things, religious reasons for example. Not saying they're well thought out or even remotely valid, but thinking in such a black and white manner isn't beneficial to decent conversation.
My first thought was that it was a non-sequitur, but that it involved subcontinent Indians. I find it ironic that people who are apparently calling out one kind of bigotry in this thread are then playing on stereotypes of what people who live in certain places are like.
As a nonwhite who actually has been racially bashed and who has seen people overcome bigotry through their basic humanity, I always want to warn everyone that the problem isn't people from a particular place, people of a particular ethnicity, or people grouped by any surface characteristic, chosen, indelible or in between. The problem is groupthink, and the dark emotions that can come about because of it.
The moment you start imputing thoughts, feelings, and emotions to people with scant evidence, you have taken a misstep. (1) You have succumbed to groupthink. If you would fight bigotry, it first behooves you to actively eliminate your own bigotry. It's then your duty not to fall into the very patterns you're supposed to fight.
(1) -- Also, if you start condemning people because you imagine you know what they are thinking and feeling, and you believe they are lying to you, then you set up a situation where no one can prove their innocence, and no one trusts anyone else anymore. We have historical accounts of such times and places. Often, such epistemological catastrophes accompany inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian violence and atrocities.
No, I'm implying that the post doesn't have enough context to say one way or the other. That said, I do personally avoid language like that for exactly this reason. Avoiding ambiguity is just good writing, and I've had enough "[marginalized group], right?" encounters to not want to give horrible people any notion that I might agree with them.
No, CoCs are meant to clearly state that bigotry is unacceptable.
If you don't understand why it's necessary at times to clearly state what bigotry is, and why it's unacceptable, than you need to learn a bit more about diversity topics.
They (CoC)s shouldn't be used to play power games. It's totally appropriate to call out situations where a CoC is used incorrectly.
Was there another way I should have read your comment with that in mind?
reply