Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

OP and myself are making the case that, by dipping into politics and labelling certain opinions, rhetoric and/or factual claims as "unacceptable", they're making themselves exactly that.


sort by: page size:

It's not. This person doesn't like someone's political beliefs, so they're trying to denigrate them on a seemingly "objective" basis, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

How so? I'm primarily calling them out for spewing their political beliefs in public and I described the lack of awareness they have as they do it (and I touched on the underpinnings as to why I think that lack of awareness exists). How am I doing the "exact" same thing here?

The kind of politics where you point at specific people or groups and say "ooh, they're nasty" isn't OK.

Why is it acceptable to be so downright anti-political?

What you say here implies that you think extreme or fringe political views are somehow "bad".

you say that in a manner suggesting that you think holding those political views is both inherently bad, and deserving of arbitrary punishment

Who's talking about feeling uncomfortable? We're talking about actively punishing people for their political opinions. I can't tell if you're deliberately misreading the discussion.

please elaborate where op drew false equivalencies to attack political opponents

I hate mudflinging as much as the next guy, but how would someone even engage in politics at all without statements that could be described as detestation or vilification? Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them?

Yes yes, there's "on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." That seems about as firm as a plastic bag blowing through a parking lot. I'm sure that category won't grow larger and larger until it's impossible to criticize the powerful or the status quo at all.


It's people trying their absolute best to be opaque while holding completely obvious political views.

I’m not offended. It’s gross because extreme positions are mainstream among conservative voters. People who wanted to overturn the 2020 election result are extremists too.

It's a bit tough to understand how you reconcile this position with your original paragraph.

>Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. The only right way to view these complex issues is to sign your name to join my party and then hold the party line, and everything else is unethical. I can't imagine a more obnoxious political viewpoint than that.

Your position is that holding a position and critiquing those that don't hold it is the most obnoxious political viewpoint to take. How can you adopt and advocate for any political position, then, other than a 'non-position' which doesn't actually adopt any stance?


I find it fascinating this type of response from people is always accompanied by a political label in order to insinuate some other negative baggage.

I think it’s somewhat misleading to refer to those who support genocide and child abuse as simply “political undesirables.”

It's rude to make assumptions about someone's political views, and then hold those assumed views against them.

You accused them of using an oversimplification with a selective definition, and then immediately performed that exact fallacy ("people with political opinions they support").

The example image of the post is carefully done to make appear one side of the political spectrum worse than the other. I don't like this stuff. Specially if this people is aiming for an open place.

Sure, but where is the line drawn? A lot of political rhetoric across the board is pretty extreme. The guy who shot up a Republican Congressional baseball game at baseball practice was into a lot of anti-GOP and anti-Trump stuff[1]:

> He had also joined several anti-GOP Facebook groups, including “Terminate The Republican Party;” “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans;” and “Join The Resistance Worldwide!!”

I'm all for people toning things down. But the entire online ecosystem seems to be full of various factions warring against each other with extreme rhetoric. Even the discussion of extreme rhetoric is filled with extreme rhetoric ("These people are going to get someone killed!"), which can (and is) used to justify all sorts of bad things.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-pr...


No, but see, that's okay to do. Having completely insane expectations from the other side and asking normal people to throw away their lives is okay. Just as long as you don't ask for them to do the same, or why they didn't do the same in the past because that's just whataboutism now.

The only charitable interpretation I can come up with is that they maybe live in a democracy and are too used to politics being completely devoid of any danger. It's easy to have strong convictions and strongly held opinions/values in a peaceful democracy, but it's completely different when politics involve violence and can ruin your whole life.

next

Legal | privacy