Author Topic: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?  (Read 5204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2017, 02:47:11 PM »
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-cancelled

One of the directors of The Matrix, Lana Wachowski,  was at the Berkeley protest.
Quote
Lana Wachowski, another protester, defended using extreme tactics to deny Yiannopolous a platform. “The moral imperative is to win,” she said. “There’s something to be said for fighting according to a code, but if you lose, people are going to die. People are going to get deported.

“It’s absolutely acceptable to use violence. They are 100% certain to use it against us.”

Huh; I knew about Lana, but I did not know about Lilly.  Learn something new every day. 

Offline Tick

  • Cleavage is a drug! Dracula is a junkie
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9113
  • Gender: Male
  • We will, we will, Trump you, boom boom, clap!
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2017, 08:16:17 AM »
I like how conservatives are painted as intolerant and filled with hate  by the people who smash windows and torch cars because they have no tolerance for anything that goes against there core beliefs.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Scorpion

  • Unreal Heir
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9767
  • Gender: Male
  • Ragnarök around the Clöck!
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2017, 08:28:24 AM »
I like how conservatives are painted as intolerant and filled with hate  by the people who smash windows and torch cars because they have no tolerance for anything that goes against there core beliefs.

And yet you equate liberals with vandals and rioters. Just because I hold a more liberal worldview does not mean that I in any way endorse rioting or violence against property or people - just as you being a conservative doesn't mean that you're intolerant and filled with hate.

Generalisations don't help anyone.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2017, 08:36:06 AM by Scorpion »
scorpion is my favorite deathcore lobster
Hey, the length is fine :azn: Thanks!

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10134
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2017, 09:03:49 AM »
I like how conservatives are painted as intolerant and filled with hate  by the people who smash windows and torch cars because they have no tolerance for anything that goes against there core beliefs.
just as you being a conservative doesn't mean that you're intolerant and filled with hate.

or endorse mass murder

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/alexandre-bissonnette-trump-travel-ban-quebec-mosque-shooting-1.3966687

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #39 on: February 06, 2017, 08:10:03 AM »
I like how conservatives are painted as intolerant and filled with hate  by the people who smash windows and torch cars because they have no tolerance for anything that goes against there core beliefs.

And yet you equate liberals with vandals and rioters. Just because I hold a more liberal worldview does not mean that I in any way endorse rioting or violence against property or people - just as you being a conservative doesn't mean that you're intolerant and filled with hate.

Generalisations don't help anyone.

A point I've made time and time again.  So why does it keep happening?   Why the lies?  Why the hyperbole?  This is STILL called a "MUSLIM ban", and there's not one shred of evidence that this is the case (it's a pretty shitty ban if it only covers 200 million out of the 1.8 BILLION Muslims in the world).   And I STILL hear people talking about Trump's "hatred" of homosexuals, even if there isn't one SHRED of evidence that he has any animosity against gays. 

I have to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining how some of my political beleifs aren't in fact "hateful" and "intolerant", and it's frustrating because it doesn't seem to move the needle one bit.  I am ADAMANTLY pro-choice, ADAMANTLY for letting people do as they please in their bedrooms (even to extremes, sometimes, which is ironic at least to me), and yet god forbid you suggest that these laws that FORCE a person to make a cake for a gay couple getting married is actually providing them MORE rights than the rest of the population (a cake owner can deny me a cake for any reason, or no reason at all.  If was gay, that wouldn't be the case).   GOD FORBID you suggest that perhaps the argument that "I was born this way" is flawed, because, likely, sociopaths and pedophiles are "born that way" as well.   It's not intended to infringe on rights or marginalize, it's an attempt to UNDERSTAND, so that we can make laws that are reflective of SCIENCE, and withstand the scrutiny of those that truly DO have a problem with treating our homosexual friends equally (who I personally think are narrow-minded and short-sighted in their views). 

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #40 on: February 06, 2017, 01:51:14 PM »
I don't think anyone is suggesting only gay people should be protected from discrimination. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

And that should apply whether you're a white, Christian, male, straight, conservative or a black, lesbian, muslim, communist.

The only reason you feel like this is giving people "extra" rights is because you don't need to worry about businesses discriminating against you. It is the very definition of privilege.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2017, 07:16:14 AM »
I don't think anyone is suggesting only gay people should be protected from discrimination. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

And that should apply whether you're a white, Christian, male, straight, conservative or a black, lesbian, muslim, communist.

The only reason you feel like this is giving people "extra" rights is because you don't need to worry about businesses discriminating against you. It is the very definition of privilege.

NO.  Don't start with me on that.   "Privilege".  That's just a way of marginalizing the argument without actually ADDRESSING the argument.   It's not "privilege".  It's that I don't go into any store with the expectation that I SHOULD be served or I HAVE to be served.   I HAVE been denied service for various reasons, some my fault, some bullshit, and guess what?  No lawsuits.  No complaining on Twatter.  No calling the establishment "racist".  I take my business elsewhere, and if I can't find my business elsewhere I make do.   "Privilege" is just the same entitlement that anyone else has, without the luxury of a "minority" or "special class" tied to it.   

My dad.  Handicapped since he was about 30, 35 (severe rheumatoid arthritis).  Until some breakthroughs in treatment, I used to have to put his socks and shoes on for him in the morning to go to work, and most days I had to help lift him out of his chair.   I can remember him coming home from a job interview, and telling my mom "doesn't look good; they said they wanted someone more 'healthy'".    Guess what he did.  Call a lawyer?  Nope.  Whine on Instachat?  Nope.   Complain to the higher ups in the company?  Nope.    Give that business one star on Yelp and tell all his friends not to buy their goods?  Nope.    He opened the newspaper and kept looking, until he finally DID get a job.  Period.  And that's the lesson I took from that. EVERYONE has an excuse at some point.  You either rise above or you don't.   

Now, I'm in no way shape or form saying that the entire world has to "suck it up, butter cup", as there are real egregious cases of discrimination that have to be stopped.  No question.  I also am not saying that ALL laws in this regard are unnecessary, or frivolous.  Without question, if I do Job A for $x,000, and a woman is doing Job A, they should be paid $x,000, full stop.    That's not at all what I'm talking about.   

But once we incorporate the "entitlement" mentality into those laws, we're fucked, and in my opinion, we already have (and the "privilege" argument is predicated on the "entitlement" mentality). The laws ought to minimize the possibility of "wrongs" from happening; it should not be establishing a new set of "wrongs" to be adhered to.     

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #42 on: February 07, 2017, 07:32:39 AM »
Alright so now that you've attacked the last word in my post how about the rest of my point?

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18701
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #43 on: February 07, 2017, 07:42:31 AM »
I don't think anyone is suggesting only gay people should be protected from discrimination. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

And that should apply whether you're a white, Christian, male, straight, conservative or a black, lesbian, muslim, communist.

The only reason you feel like this is giving people "extra" rights is because you don't need to worry about businesses discriminating against you. It is the very definition of privilege.

My dad.  Handicapped since he was about 30, 35 (severe rheumatoid arthritis).  Until some breakthroughs in treatment, I used to have to put his socks and shoes on for him in the morning to go to work, and most days I had to help lift him out of his chair.   I can remember him coming home from a job interview, and telling my mom "doesn't look good; they said they wanted someone more 'healthy'".    Guess what he did.  Call a lawyer?  Nope.  Whine on Instachat?  Nope.   Complain to the higher ups in the company?  Nope.    Give that business one star on Yelp and tell all his friends not to buy their goods?  Nope.    He opened the newspaper and kept looking, until he finally DID get a job.  Period.  And that's the lesson I took from that. EVERYONE has an excuse at some point.  You either rise above or you don't.   


Do you remember what job it was your father applied for? I mean, if it was something that required lots of physical labor, I can understand the handicap being a legitimate, understandable, and maybe even expected reason to not hire someone. I mean, you couldn't have someone who regularly suffers from seizures operating a skyrise crane, and I would hope the person who suffers from the seizures would understand why they were not hired for such a job. I wouldn't consider that discrimination, and I'd imagine they'd keep looking until they could find a job that could safely accommodate whatever their handicap is. Now if a guy had 15 years on a similar same crane, met all the qualifications, and didn't get the job because he's clearly gay and then went home to the interviewer's facebook page and found it filled with hate speech, I'd say discrimination is likely. That I'm not really cool with, but at the same time, part of me feels like a business owner should have 100% control over who they hire. Providing services is a different story though. In that realm, I fully support not being able to discriminate.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #44 on: February 07, 2017, 09:27:13 AM »
Alright so now that you've attacked the last word in my post how about the rest of my point?

I thought I answered it.   We allow businesses to discriminate every single day.  Why is it special when it's a homosexual?  it would make no sense not to, for business reasons, but if I went into a cake store and said "I'd like a cake that says, in big pink letters, "I Love Me Some Vagina!"", they don't have to sell that to me.   If I asked for a cake that said "I Wish Pedophilia Was Legit, and Someday, God Willing, It Just May Be!", they don't have to sell that to me.  And there are no grounds other than their own morals that would prevent them from doing so. 

Again, I recognize it's a very fine line here, and we have to be diligent in policing that line, but this is a BALANCE of competing rights, here, and I think that nuance has been lost.    Please understand that I am not at all advocating AGAINST gay rights, I am merely saying that they should be EQUAL, and nothing more, nothing less.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #45 on: February 07, 2017, 09:30:37 AM »
I don't think anyone is suggesting only gay people should be protected from discrimination. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

And that should apply whether you're a white, Christian, male, straight, conservative or a black, lesbian, muslim, communist.

The only reason you feel like this is giving people "extra" rights is because you don't need to worry about businesses discriminating against you. It is the very definition of privilege.

My dad.  Handicapped since he was about 30, 35 (severe rheumatoid arthritis).  Until some breakthroughs in treatment, I used to have to put his socks and shoes on for him in the morning to go to work, and most days I had to help lift him out of his chair.   I can remember him coming home from a job interview, and telling my mom "doesn't look good; they said they wanted someone more 'healthy'".    Guess what he did.  Call a lawyer?  Nope.  Whine on Instachat?  Nope.   Complain to the higher ups in the company?  Nope.    Give that business one star on Yelp and tell all his friends not to buy their goods?  Nope.    He opened the newspaper and kept looking, until he finally DID get a job.  Period.  And that's the lesson I took from that. EVERYONE has an excuse at some point.  You either rise above or you don't.   


Do you remember what job it was your father applied for? I mean, if it was something that required lots of physical labor, I can understand the handicap being a legitimate, understandable, and maybe even expected reason to not hire someone. I mean, you couldn't have someone who regularly suffers from seizures operating a skyrise crane, and I would hope the person who suffers from the seizures would understand why they were not hired for such a job. I wouldn't consider that discrimination, and I'd imagine they'd keep looking until they could find a job that could safely accommodate whatever their handicap is. Now if a guy had 15 years on a similar same crane, met all the qualifications, and didn't get the job because he's clearly gay and then went home to the interviewer's facebook page and found it filled with hate speech, I'd say discrimination is likely. That I'm not really cool with, but at the same time, part of me feels like a business owner should have 100% control over who they hire. Providing services is a different story though. In that realm, I fully support not being able to discriminate.

Plant manager/Operating manager at a manufacturing facility in Bridgeport.  They made the casters, the little wheels you see on the bottom of suitcases and IKEA furniture.   In a perfect world, yeah, probably it's better to have The Rock than, say, Phil Collins circa 2016 (if you saw him on Kimmel a few weeks ago, you'd get this reference), but it was by no means a job requirement. 

but I'm with you; that's for the business to decide.   And frankly, their mistake wasn't in the decision, it was just in saying that to my dad.  Though I respect their honesty, they could have made that decision and told him it was for any of a 100 different reasons that wouldn't have hurt him or demoralized him, but that's the way it goes. 

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #46 on: February 07, 2017, 11:14:21 AM »
Alright so now that you've attacked the last word in my post how about the rest of my point?

I thought I answered it.   We allow businesses to discriminate every single day.  Why is it special when it's a homosexual?  it would make no sense not to, for business reasons, but if I went into a cake store and said "I'd like a cake that says, in big pink letters, "I Love Me Some Vagina!"", they don't have to sell that to me.   If I asked for a cake that said "I Wish Pedophilia Was Legit, and Someday, God Willing, It Just May Be!", they don't have to sell that to me.  And there are no grounds other than their own morals that would prevent them from doing so. 

The difference here, and it is a pretty big one, is that in your examples you are being refused service based on what you want written on the cake, not who you are.

It's not like people are upset that a christian baker won't write "Gay Pride Forever!" on a cake. They're still a gaping asshole, but that's their call. The problem is that they're being asked to make a regular cake that just so happens to be for a gay wedding.

Imagine if you tried to order a cake for your wedding, and after giving your name they say, "Oh you know what, we don't serve pollacks here."

That's what I'm saying should be illegal.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #47 on: February 07, 2017, 06:32:05 PM »
Alright so now that you've attacked the last word in my post how about the rest of my point?

I thought I answered it.   We allow businesses to discriminate every single day.  Why is it special when it's a homosexual?  it would make no sense not to, for business reasons, but if I went into a cake store and said "I'd like a cake that says, in big pink letters, "I Love Me Some Vagina!"", they don't have to sell that to me.   If I asked for a cake that said "I Wish Pedophilia Was Legit, and Someday, God Willing, It Just May Be!", they don't have to sell that to me.  And there are no grounds other than their own morals that would prevent them from doing so. 

The difference here, and it is a pretty big one, is that in your examples you are being refused service based on what you want written on the cake, not who you are.

It's not like people are upset that a christian baker won't write "Gay Pride Forever!" on a cake. They're still a gaping asshole, but that's their call. The problem is that they're being asked to make a regular cake that just so happens to be for a gay wedding.

Imagine if you tried to order a cake for your wedding, and after giving your name they say, "Oh you know what, we don't serve pollacks here."

That's what I'm saying should be illegal.

So "having an opinion that is contrary to yours" = "gaping asshole".  Good to know. 

If they said "we don't serve Polacks here", I'd take my business elsewhere, end of story.   I don't know why that's so hard.  I don't see the fundamental difference.   If the cake is intended to showcase one's love of little boys - through the words - or one's love of their husband - through its presence at the wedding, I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference there.  So if a dude walked in and said "I want a cake that says "Someday!  Keep praying and SOMEDAY!"" and the cake maker says "Sure!  What's it for? What are you praying for?" and the dude says "it's for my local NAMBLA meeting!  Praying for my love to be legal!" they HAVE to sell it to him?  Because, after all, it's not about the words, it's about WHO HE IS.  He's born that way just as much as I'm born attracted to a beautiful smile, and Lance Bass is attracted to whatever it is that turns his head.     

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #48 on: February 08, 2017, 10:43:57 AM »
So "having an opinion that is contrary to yours" = "gaping asshole".  Good to know. 

If that opinion is, "Certain types of people aren't fully human like me", then yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with that.


If they said "we don't serve Polacks here", I'd take my business elsewhere, end of story.   I don't know why that's so hard.  I don't see the fundamental difference.   If the cake is intended to showcase one's love of little boys - through the words - or one's love of their husband - through its presence at the wedding, I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference there.  So if a dude walked in and said "I want a cake that says "Someday!  Keep praying and SOMEDAY!"" and the cake maker says "Sure!  What's it for? What are you praying for?" and the dude says "it's for my local NAMBLA meeting!  Praying for my love to be legal!" they HAVE to sell it to him?  Because, after all, it's not about the words, it's about WHO HE IS.  He's born that way just as much as I'm born attracted to a beautiful smile, and Lance Bass is attracted to whatever it is that turns his head.     

OK first of all, can you stop with the pedophile bit? There's a fairly obvious distinction, namely, if the pedophile gets to do his thing he's hurting people, if the gay couple do they are not.

Secondly, and here I'm going to try to explain what I meant earlier without using the dreaded "p" word... both you and I know that, barring some massive upheaval in American society, noone is actually going to discriminate against you. Even if there were one asshole (see, it applies if they discriminate against you, too!), it's hardly going to be systemic. You're not going to see half of the political spectrum rushing to defend some guy's right to not serve Polish people. So, ultimately, this remains a purely philosophical question to you. It's never a problem you will have to deal with in real life. It's extremely simple for you to say that you would act and feel in a way that aligns with your political beliefs when you have not and will never experience it.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1749
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #49 on: February 08, 2017, 10:49:25 AM »
Genowyn, it's hardly a persuasive argument tactic to throw out what you believe to be a persuasive example, only to dismiss it as irrelevant and then just fall back on "you can't possibly understand since you aren't part of the group that is being impacted" once you realize the person on the other side can articulate a defense to it.  You are pretty much displaying the very problem this thread was meant to call out and discuss.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2017, 10:57:23 AM »
Well when I gave the pollack example I never thought it was going to change Stadler's mind, I was mainly using it to express that I would want these sort of protections to apply to everyone.

So, Stadler's response of "Well I would just do what my beliefs say I would", was sort of missing the point.

And the fact is psychological studies show that when push comes to shove people do often act in ways they never thought they would before they were in that situation.

Also I wasn't falling back on anything, I was bringing it back to the discussion about the naughty 'p' word and trying to avoiding triggering anyone by typing it out.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2017, 11:23:54 AM »
So "having an opinion that is contrary to yours" = "gaping asshole".  Good to know. 

If that opinion is, "Certain types of people aren't fully human like me", then yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 

Quote
OK first of all, can you stop with the pedophile bit? There's a fairly obvious distinction, namely, if the pedophile gets to do his thing he's hurting people, if the gay couple do they are not.

Ah, see, you fell for it.  I never once ever said ANYTHING about "touching a kid", and in fact, the fact pattern was very much structured the opposite: "I recognize it's illegal, and won't act on my urges until it IS legal".  That's the point.  Whether you think someone is being "hurt" or not is not even a variable in the equation.  We're talking thoughts and ideas here.   The programming is about IDEAS.   If you're not down with "the IDEA", you're a homophobe right out the gate.   There is a very strong possibility that the biology of "pedophilia" is the same as the biology of any sexual behavior, including heterosexuality, and homosexuality.   So yes, when there is action there is harm (just like certain forms of consensual sex have harms) but we're not at that point yet.   I can think about killing my ex-wife, but unless and until I take affirmative action to actually kill her, there's no crime.   Same here. 

Quote
Secondly, and here I'm going to try to explain what I meant earlier without using the dreaded "p" word... both you and I know that, barring some massive upheaval in American society, noone is actually going to discriminate against you. Even if there were one asshole (see, it applies if they discriminate against you, too!), it's hardly going to be systemic. You're not going to see half of the political spectrum rushing to defend some guy's right to not serve Polish people. So, ultimately, this remains a purely philosophical question to you. It's never a problem you will have to deal with in real life. It's extremely simple for you to say that you would act and feel in a way that aligns with your political beliefs when you have not and will never experience it.

No, sport, you don't get to marginalize the argument by saying "it's not you".   The point isn't about whether it's me; by that argument, unless you are actually gay, you can't argue FOR or AGAINST gay rights.  That pretty much kills the revolution right there.  In any event, that's sort of my one beef with the gay rights movement; it's not rooted in "equal rights for all"; it's rooted in some tautology that applies really only to homosexuals.   if you're really FOR "equal rights for all", you're not worried about the probabilities of "Polacks" coming under fire, you're worried about creating an environment where NO ONE comes under fire, and you're worried about creating a legal framework where if one does come under fire, they can avail themselves of that argument.   

I don't have to explain my bona fides to you, but you don't have any idea how I've applied - or not - my political beliefs to my real life.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2017, 11:37:01 AM »
Well when I gave the pollack example I never thought it was going to change Stadler's mind, I was mainly using it to express that I would want these sort of protections to apply to everyone.

So, Stadler's response of "Well I would just do what my beliefs say I would", was sort of missing the point.

And the fact is psychological studies show that when push comes to shove people do often act in ways they never thought they would before they were in that situation.

Also I wasn't falling back on anything, I was bringing it back to the discussion about the naughty 'p' word and trying to avoiding triggering anyone by typing it out.

I responded to your other post before I saw this, so...

You're right about some of the psychological studies; but that it happens in SOME cases, doesn't mean it happens in all, or that you can create laws based on that.  I have more than enough examples of both in my life, but THANK GOD I have far more of consistency than not.  I personally don't believe it's right to take a life; you can imagine what that means in terms of abortion.  Politically, I'm pro-choice.   In real life, when faced with a child that was preliminarily diagnosed with moderate to severe Down's Syndrome, I walked the walk.   We went ahead with the birth.  I've already related the story of my dad.  It's all a form of "Tend Your Own Garden".

I'm not at all trolling you, but in a sense I am baiting you, in a polite, constructive way.  I know the points I've raised are controversial ones.   And you've kind of proved my point; we're NOT willing in this society to entertain these kinds of ideas.   They scare us (perhaps for different reasons on either side).   The common wisdom is that we hate what we fear.   Studies have shown that there is a correlation between homophobic behavior and homosexual desires (that's not the right way of saying it, but you get the point).  You rejecting my arguments out of hand because "I can't possibly know" is akin to that.  The underlying notion here is there is no "right or wrong" per se, at least in terms of the arguments, it's a matter of psychology on both sides.  Your "hate" is no better or worse, no more moral or not, than anyone else's "hate". 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2017, 12:09:03 PM »
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Just one possible viewpoint.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2017, 12:26:42 PM »
I find it rather troubling that when the discussion turns to privilege (I'll say it now), your reaction is that it is an attempt to say your perspective is irrelevant. It's not. What it is is saying, "Hey maybe if you recognize your life is inherently different from these people you could try to understand their point better."

...my name is Araragi.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1749
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2017, 12:31:24 PM »
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #56 on: February 08, 2017, 12:59:10 PM »
I find it rather troubling that when the discussion turns to privilege (I'll say it now), your reaction is that it is an attempt to say your perspective is irrelevant. It's not. What it is is saying, "Hey maybe if you recognize your life is inherently different from these people you could try to understand their point better."

Aren't they the same thing?  You assuming - for whatever reason - that my position is based on a lack of understanding is the problem.   By your logic, no white person can comment on race relations, no straight person can comment on the politics of sexuality...  and (respectfully) you're missing the point that the law doesn't - and shouldn't - account for that.  it should work regardless of your "understanding" or regardless of whether your life is "inherently different".  The person who is a sociopath is "inherently different", but doesn't get a special set of rules. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2017, 01:19:34 PM »
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Not mistaken.  The case that started it all was a Colorado shop that refused to sell a wedding cake (just a regular wedding cake) to a gay couple.  The cake itself had no message.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1749
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2017, 01:26:42 PM »
A wedding cake by its very nature has a message.  We can quibble over the specifics of that message.  But generally speaking, it conveys a celebratory message of the event of the wedding.  The owners in that case objected to the message, not the people, and are on record that they would (and have in the past) provide other cakes for those same people.  There isn't an argument that it is somehow about the people rather than the message.  That isn't really open to interpretation based on these facts.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13732
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2017, 01:40:02 PM »
When the message is basically "people like us should have the same marriage rights as people like you", it is, admittedly, difficult to divorce it from the idea that the baker is looking down on the person.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18701
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2017, 01:46:16 PM »
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Not mistaken.  The case that started it all was a Colorado shop that refused to sell a wedding cake (just a regular wedding cake) to a gay couple.  The cake itself had no message.

That shop also offered to make the couple anything else in their catering menu for their wedding, they just couldn't make the cake. Not sure if this was the same bakery, but I think they also offered to bake and base-decorate the cake, they just wouldn't put the wedding flare on.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18238
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2017, 01:56:44 PM »
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Not mistaken.  The case that started it all was a Colorado shop that refused to sell a wedding cake (just a regular wedding cake) to a gay couple.  The cake itself had no message.

That shop also offered to make the couple anything else in their catering menu for their wedding, they just couldn't make the cake. Not sure if this was the same bakery, but I think they also offered to bake and base-decorate the cake, they just wouldn't put the wedding flare on.
This quote chain demonstrates to me quite nicely what I figured all along. They're all a bunch of silly cunts. Both parties. We should let them all burn.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2017, 01:57:53 PM »
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Not mistaken.  The case that started it all was a Colorado shop that refused to sell a wedding cake (just a regular wedding cake) to a gay couple.  The cake itself had no message.

That shop also offered to make the couple anything else in their catering menu for their wedding, they just couldn't make the cake. Not sure if this was the same bakery, but I think they also offered to bake and base-decorate the cake, they just wouldn't put the wedding flare on.
This quote chain demonstrates to me quite nicely what I figured all along. They're all a bunch of silly cunts. Both parties. We should let them all burn.

You said it, not me.  ;)

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #63 on: February 08, 2017, 02:10:29 PM »
A wedding cake by its very nature has a message.  We can quibble over the specifics of that message.  But generally speaking, it conveys a celebratory message of the event of the wedding.  The owners in that case objected to the message, not the people, and are on record that they would (and have in the past) provide other cakes for those same people.  There isn't an argument that it is somehow about the people rather than the message.  That isn't really open to interpretation based on these facts.
OK.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 1743
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2017, 11:54:13 AM »
So I've been reading up on the hubbub about the Under Armor CEO and how people are going to boycott the company because he supports Trump's views on business. I'm extremely bothered by this trend to boycott anyone who supports the president. It seems childish and unproductive. Watching the news one would assume that no man, woman, or person of color voted for Trump and he just magically appeared in the White House as president.

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9269
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2017, 01:07:48 PM »
We as a society seem to have this knee-jerky reaction to anything that doesn't agree with our viewpoint to a point where, yes, we are becoming more mentally like children on a whole.

I'm not sure if there is any substance to these slacktivist movements by "boycotting" products you weren't going to buy anyways other than to make yourself feel good to typing out a message or hashtag and releasing it into the wild.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2017, 01:20:22 PM »
I certainly support the right of others to boycott, but I don't do it.  People often take it too far, or boycott for reasons that are insufficient for me.

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.

Same with Under Armour.  I mean, I'm not really in the market for any of their products at the moment, but I were, I wouldn't base my purchasing decision on this.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24322
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2017, 01:25:27 PM »
So I've been reading up on the hubbub about the Under Armor CEO and how people are going to boycott the company because he supports Trump's views on business. I'm extremely bothered by this trend to boycott anyone who supports the president. It seems childish and unproductive. Watching the news one would assume that no man, woman, or person of color voted for Trump and he just magically appeared in the White House as president.

And protesting all of that stuff is their right (minus the violence).
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2017, 01:37:48 PM »

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18238
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #69 on: February 09, 2017, 01:48:31 PM »

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.
I agree with all of this. Boycotts are where my principles become conflicted in all of this. I support his right to his opinion, and I support the right of people to opt not to do business with him if they don't like his points of view. The problem is simply that it's so easy for a personal boycott to become an orchestrated campaign nowadays, and when that happens it's rarely based on anything rather than emotion aroused by dubious interpretations. It's inciting the mob to sharpen their pitchforks when the mob is not known for asking why.

One thing I will add is that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" is a denouncement of gay marriage. We don't live in a vacuum and his statement really can't be seen as anything other. You already know I'm on your side on this, but you suggested, probably inadvertently, that his remarks were innocent and I can see people feeling personally threatened by them.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson