Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Erasing history


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#41 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 06:23 PM

View PostElara, on 19 August 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

The nazi party was ignored, allowed to spew their sickness, culminating in the killings of millions of people. Free speech is good, but hate speech should never be ignored in the futile hopes that peace and love will change them.

While I am sure some ignored the Nazis, I understand the Nazis had critics. Their critics were suppressed, intimated, or arrested until they were silent, or in stubborn cases killed. I would think Hitler rather wouldn't have had to put so many political opponents in concentration camps if his party was so ignored. The first people put into the concentration camps were political opponents.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#42 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 06:38 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 19 August 2017 - 06:23 PM, said:

While I am sure some ignored the Nazis, I understand the Nazis had critics. Their critics were suppressed, intimated, or arrested until they were silent, or in stubborn cases killed. I would think Hitler rather wouldn't have had to put so many political opponents in concentration camps if his party was so ignored. The first people put into the concentration camps were political opponents.

Not critics, I am talking about world governments. None of them really wanted to get into another world war, so they basically ignored hitler's rise in power, ignored what he was saying, hoped that it would be contained in his own country, maybe hoped that another German would assassinate him, etc... No, not completely ignored him, but far more than they should have, probably in the hope that the problem would go away.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#43 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 08:08 PM

On "Erasing history" here is another perspective:

Thoughts on Confederate Statues from a Southern White Male

He suggests the memorials themselves were an attempt to erase history.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#44 RJDiogenes

RJDiogenes

    Idealistic Cynic

  • Demigod
  • 11,286 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 11:47 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 18 August 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

I am not sure those are facts, but more an argument that doing those things (suppressing/oppressing an ideology, and/or cheating) are held morally wrong.  
It's both. Obviously-- at least I thought it was obvious-- suppressing free speech is wrong. But it does indeed give more power to those ideas, as history has consistently demonstrated. It drives the movement underground, where it festers and grows. It costs you your moral authority, because you demonstrate that you can't live up to your own ideals. And it advertises that you have no confidence in your ideals, because you are afraid to face your opponents in open debate.

Quote

Ideology is a system of ideas, basically a way of thinking, or a worldview. I don't know that ideology of the pre-1500 ideology of people indigenous to America, or people brought there as slaves, has really survived the oppression they have experienced over the last 500 years. Not that I'd expect their ideology to remain static or identical to what it was then, but certain it lost much of its power under oppression. It was intentional cultural genocide.
You believe that Europeans committed intentional cultural genocide and you want to use that as a role model?

Quote

Is cheating never justified? We say murder is wrong, but we have many exceptions. Death penalty, war, passion/heat of the moment, defence (not just of life, but of bodily autonomy/agency), many people would argue the jurisdictions that allow euthanasia and abortion.  
So we might as well go straight to killing them?

Quote

I am not suggesting cheating just because the other side cheats. I am thinking more of a tolerance analogy.
Isn't tolerating the intolerant self-defeating?  
No, as I demonstrated above, abandoning your values is self defeating because it's craven and cowardly. Tolerating ideas when it's not easy to do so, permitting speech that many find offensive, providing legal counsel to criminals, and having the moral fortitude to overcome bad ideas with better ideas are the foundations that this country was built on.

Quote

As has been said before, Fascists/KKK/etc, are by their very nature a threat. At what point is their promoting their ideology crossing legal lines of harassment, uttering threats, intimidation? They do not trade ideas in good faith.
The very nature of their ideology is to cheat non-white/etc of their equality and all their rights therein.
You know very well when they cross those lines-- when they actually cross them. Not just because you say they're going to cross them someday, maybe.

Quote

People like to say Hate Speech is a slippery slope. Then when are the hate speech laws in other Western countries going to lead to the death, or at least deteriorating, of free speech and civil liberties there?  
Maybe it hasn't yet. Maybe it won't. Maybe people won't be emboldened by their success at suppressing the KKK and move on to anti-vaxxers and Creationists and Antifa. You're absolutely right. I shouldn't have to appeal to practicality or self interest when encouraging people to do the right thing. Doing the right thing should be an end in itself.

View Postyadda yadda, on 18 August 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

I don't know about that, RJ. That seems simplistic to me.
As a matter of fact, I do find American values very simple. I've always had a hard time understanding why Right Wingers don't want to live up to them.  Now, in the 21st century, I'm having a hard time understanding why Left Wingers don't want to live up to them.

Quote

There's more than one way to beat the bad guys. We beat these same bad guys in WWII by shooting them and bombing the sh!t out of them, and cutting off the head of their leadership. Sometimes it's necessary to suppress an ideology by wiping out those who espouse it and then follow up their rhetoric with merciless mind numbing inhuman murder. Sometimes you just can't play fair and be better than monsters.  
I didn't find that disturbing at all.

Quote

It's one thing to honor and glorify freedom of speech because let's face it, we all know sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. It's when the expression of those venomous words lead to broken bones from sticks and stones and death from Dodge Challengers, that a more basic instinct and principle of self defense comes into play.  
Which is the same logic that The Donald used to justify his Muslim ban. You've just given another example of how the Left has become just like the Right.

View Postsierraleone, on 18 August 2017 - 08:07 PM, said:

Unless incompetence, cheaters will win over their fair and ethical opponents.  
So you seek to discredit the concept of ethics?

Quote

That is why we have government regulations covering everything from water-quality to wall-street.
To protect us from cheaters. People acting not-in-good-faith. People gaming the system for their own benefit.
Why would hate-speech be different?  
Because it's none of those things you mentioned. You're using examples of larceny to justify censorship.

Quote

Their whole ideology is based on unfairness. They don't and won't play fair, which gives them an advantage. Whether it is enough of an advantage will depend on the strength of the community's peoples, institutions and even economy. But it can happen anywhere.  
So you'll only fight if it's easy?  We had a free speech rally here in Boston yesterday.  You might want to think about how that worked out before you dismiss the concept of morality.

Quote

Am I saying abandon fairness? No. Abandon values on free-speech? No.  
Actually, yes.

Quote

There are already slight restrictions on free speech, based on safety (shouting fire in a crowd, conveying threats, harassment, intimidation).  
And slander and libel.  None of which has anything to do with what we're talking about.

Quote

I am suggesting make it clear that hate-speech is considered to be a form of uttering threats, harassment and/or intimidation. And make it so only the most egregious hate-speech would be prosecutable.  
Sure. If we rename it, then maybe it's not protected.

Quote

It is not a sure fire-wall against fascism/KKK/white-supremacy/nationalist, but it is a start.  
The start of what?

View Postgsmonks, on 18 August 2017 - 10:36 PM, said:

"No good Nazis" is a meme and an absolute, and as all sane people know, there are no absolutes. It's the insane and evil-doers who truck in absolutes. So I say to the pundits, "Point the finger at the movement, but don't be overly quick to judge the followers. A good many of them are people who have simply lost their way."  
Yes, this is something else the Left Wing has forgotten.  Coincidentally, I just wrote an article on that subject for the University of Richmond, but it doesn't come out until September 1st. In the meantime, people may find this article on CNN of interest.

And on the subject of convenient exceptions to free speech, this is an interesting article that someone posted on another forum.
Please visit The RJDiogenes Store. Posted Image   And my Gallery. Posted Image And my YouTube Page. Posted Image And read Trunkards. Posted Image  And then there's my Heroes Essays.  Posted Image

#45 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:43 PM

View PostRJDiogenes, on 20 August 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 18 August 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

I am not sure those are facts, but more an argument that doing those things (suppressing/oppressing an ideology, and/or cheating) are held morally wrong.  
It's both. Obviously-- at least I thought it was obvious-- suppressing free speech is wrong. But it does indeed give more power to those ideas, as history has consistently demonstrated. It drives the movement underground, where it festers and grows. It costs you your moral authority, because you demonstrate that you can't live up to your own ideals. And it advertises that you have no confidence in your ideals, because you are afraid to face your opponents in open debate.

Quote

Ideology is a system of ideas, basically a way of thinking, or a worldview. I don't know that ideology of the pre-1500 ideology of people indigenous to America, or people brought there as slaves, has really survived the oppression they have experienced over the last 500 years. Not that I'd expect their ideology to remain static or identical to what it was then, but certain it lost much of its power under oppression. It was intentional cultural genocide.
You believe that Europeans committed intentional cultural genocide and you want to use that as a role model?

Quote

Is cheating never justified? We say murder is wrong, but we have many exceptions. Death penalty, war, passion/heat of the moment, defence (not just of life, but of bodily autonomy/agency), many people would argue the jurisdictions that allow euthanasia and abortion.  
So we might as well go straight to killing them?

Quote

I am not suggesting cheating just because the other side cheats. I am thinking more of a tolerance analogy.
Isn't tolerating the intolerant self-defeating?  
No, as I demonstrated above, abandoning your values is self defeating because it's craven and cowardly. Tolerating ideas when it's not easy to do so, permitting speech that many find offensive, providing legal counsel to criminals, and having the moral fortitude to overcome bad ideas with better ideas are the foundations that this country was built on.

Quote

As has been said before, Fascists/KKK/etc, are by their very nature a threat. At what point is their promoting their ideology crossing legal lines of harassment, uttering threats, intimidation? They do not trade ideas in good faith.
The very nature of their ideology is to cheat non-white/etc of their equality and all their rights therein.    
You know very well when they cross those lines-- when they actually cross them. Not just because you say they're going to cross them someday, maybe.

Quote

People like to say Hate Speech is a slippery slope. Then when are the hate speech laws in other Western countries going to lead to the death, or at least deteriorating, of free speech and civil liberties there?  
Maybe it hasn't yet. Maybe it won't. Maybe people won't be emboldened by their success at suppressing the KKK and move on to anti-vaxxers and Creationists and Antifa. You're absolutely right. I shouldn't have to appeal to practicality or self interest when encouraging people to do the right thing. Doing the right thing should be an end in itself.

View Postyadda yadda, on 18 August 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

I don't know about that, RJ. That seems simplistic to me.
As a matter of fact, I do find American values very simple. I've always had a hard time understanding why Right Wingers don't want to live up to them.  Now, in the 21st century, I'm having a hard time understanding why Left Wingers don't want to live up to them.

Quote

There's more than one way to beat the bad guys. We beat these same bad guys in WWII by shooting them and bombing the sh!t out of them, and cutting off the head of their leadership. Sometimes it's necessary to suppress an ideology by wiping out those who espouse it and then follow up their rhetoric with merciless mind numbing inhuman murder. Sometimes you just can't play fair and be better than monsters.  
I didn't find that disturbing at all.

Quote

It's one thing to honor and glorify freedom of speech because let's face it, we all know sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. It's when the expression of those venomous words lead to broken bones from sticks and stones and death from Dodge Challengers, that a more basic instinct and principle of self defense comes into play.  
Which is the same logic that The Donald used to justify his Muslim ban. You've just given another example of how the Left has become just like the Right.

View Postsierraleone, on 18 August 2017 - 08:07 PM, said:

Unless incompetence, cheaters will win over their fair and ethical opponents.  
So you seek to discredit the concept of ethics?

Quote

That is why we have government regulations covering everything from water-quality to wall-street.
To protect us from cheaters. People acting not-in-good-faith. People gaming the system for their own benefit.
Why would hate-speech be different?  
Because it's none of those things you mentioned. You're using examples of larceny to justify censorship.

Quote

Their whole ideology is based on unfairness. They don't and won't play fair, which gives them an advantage. Whether it is enough of an advantage will depend on the strength of the community's peoples, institutions and even economy. But it can happen anywhere.  
So you'll only fight if it's easy?  We had a free speech rally here in Boston yesterday.  You might want to think about how that worked out before you dismiss the concept of morality.

Quote

Am I saying abandon fairness? No. Abandon values on free-speech? No.  
Actually, yes.

Quote

There are already slight restrictions on free speech, based on safety (shouting fire in a crowd, conveying threats, harassment, intimidation).  
And slander and libel.  None of which has anything to do with what we're talking about.

Quote

I am suggesting make it clear that hate-speech is considered to be a form of uttering threats, harassment and/or intimidation. And make it so only the most egregious hate-speech would be prosecutable.  
Sure. If we rename it, then maybe it's not protected.

Quote

It is not a sure fire-wall against fascism/KKK/white-supremacy/nationalist, but it is a start.  
The start of what?

View Postgsmonks, on 18 August 2017 - 10:36 PM, said:

"No good Nazis" is a meme and an absolute, and as all sane people know, there are no absolutes. It's the insane and evil-doers who truck in absolutes. So I say to the pundits, "Point the finger at the movement, but don't be overly quick to judge the followers. A good many of them are people who have simply lost their way."  
Yes, this is something else the Left Wing has forgotten.  Coincidentally, I just wrote an article on that subject for the University of Richmond, but it doesn't come out until September 1st. In the meantime, people may find this article on CNN of interest.

And on the subject of convenient exceptions to free speech, this is an interesting article that someone posted on another forum.

RJ, I paid you the respect of quoting and answering your original ideas as posted, instead of parsing it out amongst a mish-mash of replies from other posters. I would have appreciated a similar focused and personal response as I have noted in some of your previous discussion on OT this strategy of parsing of fragments of arguments has the effect of attenuating the clarity, flow, and attribution of original argumentation in subsequent debate. Nonetheless, I shall offer rebuttal to your dissection of my post.

You present my assertion, "I don't know about that, RJ. That seems simplistic to me" as a stand alone quote bereft of the context it was applied to. I expressed an opinion that I found your employment of the pesky "absolute" to be simplistic in stating that "The only way to beat the bad guys is to play fair and be better than they are". This is pretty much as valid as the NRA credo that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It is simplistic because you've ignored the many other ways to beat the bad guys. You fail to counter the fact your statement is simplistic by pivoting to how you feel American values are simple. Yes, that they may be. As it is your observation was simplistic. But the two things are not the same and conflating them such that "simplistic" and "simple" are supposedly equivalent as a rhetorical distraction is a linguistic fallacy.

You then quote my observation disproving your simplistic notion of there being only one way to beat the bad guys. I pointed out that we beat these very same bad guys who had previously put their words to murderous action in WWII by a different method than just demonstrating that our better natures and values were superior. We went to war and put a stop to those Nazi's murdering through superior force, not just gentle ideology. After you quote me you offer the comment "I didn't find this disturbing", but I'm getting the feeling that perhaps your statement was ironic, and that you do find it disturbing. That's ok, I guess. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and observation. But my observation is that if my dad and all the other dads and grandfathers who fought in that war, 400,000 of them Americans who died to stop Nazi-ism had thought it best to just pick posies and contemplate their navels instead of saving the world from a hateful scourge that you'd likely be typing out your disturbance of psyche in German.

You then go on to equate my logic in describing how hate speech can be a very short bridge to perpetration of deadly violence to Donald Trump's motivations in repressing and excluding certain practices of religion across our borders. I did not advocate banning anyone or deporting anyone to the Middle East. I merely proposed that venomous hate speech be considered for what it is and to be vigilant and prepared for its consequences. I did not advocate any abridgment of said hate speech. Perhaps you need a refresher course in logic, sir. Especially considering your following statement identifying me as an "example of how the Left has become just like the Right". Your premise is faulty in that I am not affiliated with the Left. But despite that, you have just aligned yourself with the "logic" espoused by "The Donald" in creating a false equivalence by conflating one group as "just like" another diametrically opposing group by one thin sliver of imagined similarity of tactic. Just as 45 has falsely equated neo-Nazis and the KKK to people protesting their racism you are falsely equating the Right and Left as being just alike. Again, a simplistic worldview in my opinion.

Edited by yadda yadda, 20 August 2017 - 03:10 PM.


#46 RJDiogenes

RJDiogenes

    Idealistic Cynic

  • Demigod
  • 11,286 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 04:17 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 August 2017 - 01:43 PM, said:

RJ, I paid you the respect of quoting and answering your original ideas as posted, instead of parsing it out amongst a mish-mash of replies from other posters. I would have appreciated a similar focused and personal response as I have noted in some of your previous discussion on OT this strategy of parsing of fragments of arguments has the effect of attenuating the clarity, flow, and attribution of original argumentation in subsequent debate. Nonetheless, I shall offer rebuttal to your dissection of my post.  
Pardon me.  I didn't realize that was an issue.  I'll break up my responses individually in the future.

Quote

You present my assertion, "I don't know about that, RJ. That seems simplistic to me" as a stand alone quote bereft of the context it was applied to. I expressed an opinion that I found your employment of the pesky "absolute" to be simplistic in stating that "The only way to beat the bad guys is to play fair and be better than they are". This is pretty much as valid as the NRA credo that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It is simplistic because you've ignored the many other ways to beat the bad guys. You fail to counter the fact your statement is simplistic by pivoting to how you feel American values are simple. Yes, that they may be. As it is your observation was simplistic. But the two things are not the same and conflating them such that "simplistic" and "simple" are supposedly equivalent as a rhetorical distraction is a linguistic fallacy.  
I kept the entire context, I just replied to the portions of it separately. As for equating simplistic with simple, I was responding to your rhetorical distraction of dismissing my argument as simplistic. It proves nothing to respond to an ethical point with legalistic literalism-- of course we can beat bad guys by bombing them, shooting them, poisoning them, blackmailing them, incarcerating them, and so on. You know that's not the point. Violence is the failure of dialogue and diplomacy, no matter how good it is to win if it happens.

Quote

You then quote my observation disproving your simplistic notion of there being only one way to beat the bad guys. I pointed out that we beat these very same bad guys who had previously put their words to murderous action in WWII by a different method than just demonstrating that our better natures and values were superior. We went to war and put a stop to those Nazi's murdering through superior force, not just gentle ideology. After you quote me you offer the comment "I didn't find this disturbing", but I'm getting the feeling that perhaps your statement was ironic, and that you do find it disturbing. That's ok, I guess. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and observation. But my observation is that if my dad and all the other dads and grandfathers who fought in that war, 400,000 of them Americans who died to stop Nazi-ism had thought it best to just pick posies and contemplate their navels instead of saving the world from a hateful scourge that you'd likely be typing out your disturbance of psyche in German.  
Yes, I found the enthusiasm disturbing. And yes, it's sometimes necessary to go to war, and it's great to win, but I think it's always better to avoid that. Also, we're discussing free speech, not a hostile foreign power invading and conquering our allies. I'm glad we went to war in Europe and Japan (not to mention Afghanistan and Iraq) because it was necessary to defend ourselves and our allies. None of that is a justification for the infringement of free speech against anyone.

Quote

You then go on to equate my logic in describing how hate speech can be a very short bridge to perpetration of deadly violence to Donald Trump's motivations in repressing and excluding certain practices of religion across our borders. I did not advocate banning anyone or deporting anyone to the Middle East. I merely proposed that venomous hate speech be considered for what it is and to be vigilant and prepared for its consequences. I did not advocate any abridgment of said hate speech.
Then I did indeed misunderstand. Since the discussion was about the abridgement of free speech and I was expressing opposition, I assumed you were arguing against me, not just nitpicking my statement about beating the bad guys.  ;) And obviously I wasn't suggesting that you were advocating deporting anyone to the Middle East, since that would have been quite a non sequitur, but pointing out the similarity of using one violent act to suppress an entire class of people (though you now say you weren't advocating that, so never mind).

Quote

Perhaps you need a refresher course in logic, sir. Especially considering your following statement identifying me as an "example of how the Left has become just like the Right". Your premise is faulty in that I am not affiliated with the Left.  
Good to know. However, it is still an approach favored by the contemporary Left.

Quote

But despite that, you have just aligned yourself with the "logic" espoused by "The Donald" in creating a false equivalence by conflating one group as "just like" another diametrically opposing group by one thin sliver of imagined similarity of tactic. Just as 45 has falsely equated neo-Nazis and the KKK to people protesting their racism you are falsely equating the Right and Left as being just alike. Again, a simplistic worldview in my opinion.  
It's not an imagined similarity of tactic, it is quite real.  And since you've stated your awareness that my statement was obviously about tactics, you also know that there is no false equivalence.  Speaking of rhetorical distractions.
Please visit The RJDiogenes Store. Posted Image   And my Gallery. Posted Image And my YouTube Page. Posted Image And read Trunkards. Posted Image  And then there's my Heroes Essays.  Posted Image

#47 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 05:32 PM



^ First off, RJ, you have a rather authoritarian habit of telling people what they know. You did it twice to me in this post and you did it to sierraleone before, and I've seen it happen before in other discussions. I'm afraid I have to call BS on that. You don't know what I know. I won't allow you to put words in my mouth or assume you know what's in my mind. That's a Trumpian style rhetorical dodge. He used it in his rogue press conference this past Tuesday telling the reporters he knew the neo-Nazis and counter protesters were equally violent and "YOU know it too". Go sell it somewhere else. I'm not buying it.

You say you kept the entire context of my argument. That is demonstrably false. You plucked out a two sentence statement I made from another page of the thread and printed it by itself. It did not display your comment that precipitated it. That is out of context and typical of the parsing hit and run style of argumentation that leads to confusion, muddying, and the ability to post wholly nonsensical made up from whole cloth parrying assertions and suggestions that stray from your dialogue partner's genuine intentions to a snarky straw man riposte of your own.

Cases in point, a canvassing of your replies to sierraleone in the same thread. After sierraleone opines that indigenous Americans and the African slave chattel brought to our nation had little success in impressing the invading European settlers and slaveowners with their ideology and worldview of a gentle better way in the face of the cultural genocide inflicted upon them ( the method you recommend to beat the bad guys), your reply was " You believe that Europeans committed intentional cultural genocide and you want to use that as a role model? " RJ, I know you have a fantastical writer's imagination and probably bounce around and inhabit all sorts of different worlds, but I ask you seriously, what planet are you on right now? How could anyone pull out such a Bizarro world question as that in response to sierraleone's post? Again that is Trumpian, attempting to express another's views or a circumstance in an opposite manner.

In another reply to sierraleone describing the existence of different exceptions to the general prohibition against murder/killing such as the death penalty, war, euthanasia, abortion, you respond "so we might as well go straight to killing them?" Where did that come from? What does it mean or in what manner bear relevance to her statement? Are you so caught up in your snark and self-assessed intellectual and masculine superiority that you have to stoop to assign violent intentions to a rhetorical opponent to try and "win" an argument? Again, Trumpian.

In a third instance you accuse sierraleone of a lowered sense of ethical values by saying "So you seek to discredit the concept of ethics?" In reply to her obvious and valid premise that unless incompetent, a cheater will invariably win over those practicing ethical restraint. Where does that come from? An objective observation deserves your ad hominem attack?

I was not waxing enthusiastic about the trappings of war. I was being descriptive for effect. I don't like war anymore than you do. And I was discussing war in the context of the horror that can be born of hateful free speech. And nowhere have I advocated for infringement of free speech, as you've admittedly "assumed" that I have. That one's on you and your assumed prejudice.

The Donald's false equivalence manifested in in equating neo-Nazis and their counter protesters because of "violence", the coming together of members of both groups jabbing with flagpoles, beating with sticks, shoving with shields, and fisticuffs. That pinpointing of a singular "tactic" to equate the other overarching ills or virtues of the opposing groups is where the false equivalency fallacy lies. As does your false equivalency of Left and Right in the same way. Just because you and I visit the bathroom and defecate in the same manner doesn't necessarily mean you and I are just alike. One single intersection of being does not validate a totality of integration.

ETA: I missed one point. Your statement of the only way to beat the bad guys is with demonstration of our better way and playing fair is simply simplistic, not a legalistic literalism, whatever that is. Accuracy in terminology is vital to effective communication. To be simplistic is to treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they are. To ignore or not treat or consider all possibilities or issues of a possible scenario. Pacifism and standing on cornerstone principle of free speech  is perhaps acceptable when a guy is threatening to stick a knife in your ribs unless you hand over your wallet. You can always hand over the wallet and hope for the best and feel good you showed that guy your civilly superior nature. But what if you're black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or some other targeted minority of hate groups and your assailant who wants to handle your finances threatens you and then sticks you in the ribs anyway, just to express his tribal superiority? Would you die with a smile on your lips because you were true to your ethical cornerstone? Props to you, if so. There is a fine line between racist hate speech evolving into threat and that threat manifesting as physical violence. It can happen in an instant or be the result of deliberate planning, as was the "rally" in Charlottesville involving handy weapons such as pointed flag poles, sticks and cudgels, shields, and masks and kerchiefs for anonymity. Assembling and speaking freely is guaranteed by our Constitution, employing accoutrements to inflict violence while doing so is not. Keep the speech free, but a wise and prepared individual and public should be wary and prepared for hate speech attached to a vile and violent history to bear ill consequences.

Edited by yadda yadda, 20 August 2017 - 09:57 PM.


#48 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 10:03 PM

I was busy today helping a friend move (thats the kind of friend I am :) ). Thank you so much Yadda yadda for covering some of what I wanted to say in response to RJDiogenes in your last two posts. I won't bother repeating them, there is enough walls of texts in this thread and I am responsible for some ;)

It rather feels like my posts were willfully misconstrued.

I try to think of the more kind possibly interpretations of other people's words (though not always successful, I am only human). Heck, I've done it with *Trump's* words. I try, when I do point out the most unkindness interpretation (that may have come first to mind), to do it in a sort of "you don't mean that I don't think" kind of way.

I know I am not the most eloquent person there is, so I do hope those trying to understand my prospective on things have at least skimmed the links I have provided, time permitting.

Absolutist positions are not going to work in all contexts and all the nuances.

View PostRJDiogenes, on 20 August 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

View Postgsmonks, on 18 August 2017 - 10:36 PM, said:

"No good Nazis" is a meme and an absolute, and as all sane people know, there are no absolutes. It's the insane and evil-doers who truck in absolutes. So I say to the pundits, "Point the finger at the movement, but don't be overly quick to judge the followers. A good many of them are people who have simply lost their way."  
Yes, this is something else the Left Wing has forgotten.  Coincidentally, I just wrote an article on that subject for the University of Richmond, but it doesn't come out until September 1st. In the meantime, people may find this article on CNN of interest.

And on the subject of convenient exceptions to free speech, this is an interesting article that someone posted on another forum.

Thank you for both of those links. I have heard of Life After Hate before, they do good work.

I had added on in this post that those in hate-groups are not irredeemable.
And that would go doubly so for those conscripted into the German Nazi Army.

View PostRJDiogenes, on 20 August 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

Violence is the failure of dialogue and diplomacy, no matter how good it is to win if it happens.

Dialogue and diplomacy require participation and honest good faith efforts from both sides.
Sometimes one side is not willing to engage, and it may or may not be, even in part, other's side fault.
Violence is still the failure of it, but lets not pretend both sides are equally at fault for dialogue and diplomacy failing.

View PostRJDiogenes, on 20 August 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

Quote

And make it so only the most egregious hate-speech would be prosecutable.
It is not a sure fire-wall against fascism/KKK/white-supremacy/nationalist, but it is a start.  
The start of what?

Ok, I regret how that sounds, or could sound, ominous, and it totally didn't carry across my meaning. Definitely mea culpa, unlike some of the other twisted interpretations of what I mean that Yadda yadda went over.

It was more to me about living up to the cultural and social promise of the emancipation and equal rights. Do you honestly think peoples can live in equitable dignity/standing when not only are they are not being judged by the content of their characters, but that some hold beliefs and say that certain peoples do not belong, and all that that carries?

We've been telling people of colour over 150 years to wait for equality. I don't believe violence will bring it sooner but it is a sad reality that our brothers and sisters of colour will, by necessity, continue to have to work toward (with white allies), and wait for their full equality.
And not even just because of the Neo-fascists/Nazis/White-Supremacists/Nationalist. It is what it is, but yes, by necessity, we are working/waiting for a sizeable number of white people to catch up to a full understanding of the humanity of their brothers and sisters of colour, and until that happens there will not be full justice or equality.

As I spoke to an experience here talking to a co-worker about indigenous activism, her response to my our conversation, which was not attacking her personally at all!, at the end was "well, the natives should just get over it".

… I didn't even know how to respond. Get over 500 years of overwhelming oppression? Any idea of what that even does to a people? I was left speechless. Yes, one could argue that that person just needs more education.

But maybe, just maybe, many whites should get over themselves. I feel they have a lot more to get over when it comes to history/race than people of colour, but maybe I am just thinking the worst of them. But it makes logical sense, people of colour have to tackle race every day, they can't not. White people have the privilege of never thinking about it, and avoiding it when it does come up if they so desire. And many absolutely hate being reminded of race-issues and call it identity politics, as if white-identify (even outside the alt-right) is not a thing….

Many white people need to stop ignoring racism, stop telling people of colour to get over racism, stop pretending racism doesn't impact people of colour now, stop down-playing racism, stop acting like racism isn't an issue they should also address. Continuing to do all those things is racist, and tells people of colour that many whites don't think racism matters;  that this country won't be truly bothered with, and isn't meant for, equality for people for colour

Hate-speech laws suggest that equality and dignity and inclusion of all people matter.

A few questions RJDiogenes:

While I understand the US doesn't have hate-speech laws, they still have hate-crime laws, such as increasing the penalty for attacking a person because the attacker hates people with the same innate trait.
How do you feel about hate crimes laws, which IIUC has been upheld but the US Supreme Court?

Are your values completely non-violence, i.e. pacifist? Or just no pre-emptive strikes, that is, do you believe in peoples right to defend themselves when attacked? Do pacifist have more/better values than someone who believes in self-defence?

Edited by sierraleone, 21 August 2017 - 11:39 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#49 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:46 AM

Something that needs addressing RE WW Parts 1 & 2:

I would strongly recommend Modris Eksteins' Rites Of Spring as to the causes leading up to WW Part the first. The reality is that all sides were itching to go to war. "War Fever" gripped the combatants, on all sides. The pundits love memes such as "good vs evil" and all that other fancy bullcrap that's intended to wrap up history neatly in a manageable little package and tie it with a bow, but it's never as simple as all that. History is a messy business, and in the end, no one's hands come out clean.

The Holocaust itself has become a justification of sorts, meant to overwhelm all dissent, and paint a picture of Good vs Evil. But again, "good vs evil" is a meme that conceals far more than it is meant to represent.

Over 100,000 rapes were reported in Berlin at the end of the war. This was not only allowed, but encouraged, over a 3-day period following the cessation of hostilities. Most rapes were of course not reported.

6000 women and men committed suicide following this incident.

3,000,000 German civilians died in the war, many of them casualties of incendiary bombing that razed entire cities to the ground.

Following the War, 30 million people were refugees. 55 million people had lost their lives. The displacement and suffering continued for decades after. Whole areas remain in grinding poverty to this very day.

Because North America was only peripherally touched by the war, there was, and there still persists, the illusion that Good triumphed over Evil. Europe and Eurasia, however, harbour no such illusions.

Small wonder that Existentialism and Nihilism originated in Europe.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#50 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,521 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:10 PM

View PostOmega, on 17 August 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

Personally, I'd just like to see this monstrosity gone.
Posted Image

You and me both.  Besides the person it represents, the statue is seriously UGLY!!!!  (For those not in Nashville, the statue is on private property and visible from the freeway.)  Time for some serious landscaping to hide it.
Cats will never be extinct!

#51 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:53 PM

View PostThemis, on 21 August 2017 - 05:10 PM, said:

View PostOmega, on 17 August 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

Personally, I'd just like to see this monstrosity gone.
Posted Image

You and me both.  Besides the person it represents, the statue is seriously UGLY!!!!  (For those not in Nashville, the statue is on private property and visible from the freeway.)  Time for some serious landscaping to hide it.

Stephen Colbert made fun of it last week. He made a big deal of him shooting the gun off to the side like that, Yosemite Sam style,  picking off his fellow soldiers.  :)

Edited by yadda yadda, 21 August 2017 - 06:05 PM.


#52 RJDiogenes

RJDiogenes

    Idealistic Cynic

  • Demigod
  • 11,286 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:12 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 August 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

^ First off, RJ, you have a rather authoritarian habit of telling people what they know. You did it twice to me in this post and you did it to sierraleone before, and I've seen it happen before in other discussions. I'm afraid I have to call BS on that. You don't know what I know. I won't allow you to put words in my mouth or assume you know what's in my mind. That's a Trumpian style rhetorical dodge. He used it in his rogue press conference this past Tuesday telling the reporters he knew the neo-Nazis and counter protesters were equally violent and "YOU know it too". Go sell it somewhere else. I'm not buying it.  
Well, it sure looked to me like you were being deliberately obtuse, but I'll take your word for it.

Quote

You say you kept the entire context of my argument. That is demonstrably false. You plucked out a two sentence statement I made from another page of the thread and printed it by itself. It did not display your comment that precipitated it. That is out of context and typical of the parsing hit and run style of argumentation that leads to confusion, muddying, and the ability to post wholly nonsensical made up from whole cloth parrying assertions and suggestions that stray from your dialogue partner's genuine intentions to a snarky straw man riposte of your own.
I try to never nest more than one level of quotes. It makes the post unnecessarily long and is distracting. If I need to go back and refresh my memory, I just open another tab, since the thread is still there. The context still exists.

Quote

Cases in point, a canvassing of your replies to sierraleone in the same thread. After sierraleone opines that indigenous Americans and the African slave chattel brought to our nation had little success in impressing the invading European settlers and slaveowners with their ideology and worldview of a gentle better way in the face of the cultural genocide inflicted upon them ( the method you recommend to beat the bad guys), your reply was " You believe that Europeans committed intentional cultural genocide and you want to use that as a role model? " RJ, I know you have a fantastical writer's imagination and probably bounce around and inhabit all sorts of different worlds, but I ask you seriously, what planet are you on right now? How could anyone pull out such a Bizarro world question as that in response to sierraleone's post? Again that is Trumpian, attempting to express another's views or a circumstance in an opposite manner.  
Nope, it's just a little thought-provoking perspective. The statement was about ideology losing power under oppression rather than growing in power-- I was pointing out the parallel to the arguments against free speech. I wouldn't presume to tell you what you know, but, having been in conversations before, it would seem that anyone would be familiar with such a common debate tactic.

Quote

In another reply to sierraleone describing the existence of different exceptions to the general prohibition against murder/killing such as the death penalty, war, euthanasia, abortion, you respond "so we might as well go straight to killing them?" Where did that come from? What does it mean or in what manner bear relevance to her statement? Are you so caught up in your snark and self-assessed intellectual and masculine superiority that you have to stoop to assign violent intentions to a rhetorical opponent to try and "win" an argument? Again, Trumpian.
Nope, still not Trumpian. Again, the common debate tactic of pointing out the logical consequence of an argument. If we can justify suppressing somebody's free speech on the basis of the possibility that they want to kill someone, why not just go for the preemptive strike?  By applying the reasoning in one case to other cases, we can more clearly see its flaws.

Quote

In a third instance you accuse sierraleone of a lowered sense of ethical values by saying "So you seek to discredit the concept of ethics?" In reply to her obvious and valid premise that unless incompetent, a cheater will invariably win over those practicing ethical restraint. Where does that come from? An objective observation deserves your ad hominem attack?  
And yet again, pointing out the flaw in the argument. If the premise is that cheaters will always win over those who play fair, then the only logical conclusion is to never play fair.

Quote

I was not waxing enthusiastic about the trappings of war. I was being descriptive for effect. I don't like war anymore than you do. And I was discussing war in the context of the horror that can be born of hateful free speech. And nowhere have I advocated for infringement of free speech, as you've admittedly "assumed" that I have. That one's on you and your assumed prejudice.  
Or you failing to make yourself clear in the context of the discussion.  But, yes, I did assume you weren't just nitpicking my catchy slogan.

Quote

The Donald's false equivalence manifested in in equating neo-Nazis and their counter protesters because of "violence", the coming together of members of both groups jabbing with flagpoles, beating with sticks, shoving with shields, and fisticuffs. That pinpointing of a singular "tactic" to equate the other overarching ills or virtues of the opposing groups is where the false equivalency fallacy lies. As does your false equivalency of Left and Right in the same way. Just because you and I visit the bathroom and defecate in the same manner doesn't necessarily mean you and I are just alike. One single intersection of being does not validate a totality of integration.  
It seems to me like the overuse of the false equivalency meme is just a dodge by the Left to avoid dealing with their complicity in the current situation.

Quote

ETA: I missed one point. Your statement of the only way to beat the bad guys is with demonstration of our better way and playing fair is simply simplistic, not a legalistic literalism, whatever that is. Accuracy in terminology is vital to effective communication. To be simplistic is to treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they are. To ignore or not treat or consider all possibilities or issues of a possible scenario. Pacifism and standing on cornerstone principle of free speech  is perhaps acceptable when a guy is threatening to stick a knife in your ribs unless you hand over your wallet. You can always hand over the wallet and hope for the best and feel good you showed that guy your civilly superior nature. But what if you're black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or some other targeted minority of hate groups and your assailant who wants to handle your finances threatens you and then sticks you in the ribs anyway, just to express his tribal superiority? Would you die with a smile on your lips because you were true to your ethical cornerstone? Props to you, if so. There is a fine line between racist hate speech evolving into threat and that threat manifesting as physical violence. It can happen in an instant or be the result of deliberate planning, as was the "rally" in Charlottesville involving handy weapons such as pointed flag poles, sticks and cudgels, shields, and masks and kerchiefs for anonymity. Assembling and speaking freely is guaranteed by our Constitution, employing accoutrements to inflict violence while doing so is not. Keep the speech free, but a wise and prepared individual and public should be wary and prepared for hate speech attached to a vile and violent history to bear ill consequences.  
Now who's deliberately misrepresenting his opponent?  ;)

And by the way: Authoritarian? Masculine superiority?  :lol:  Are you sure you're not Left Wing? ;)  For the record: 1) I am the least authoritarian person you'll ever meet in your life, 2) I may or may not be the least masculine person you'll ever meet, but I don't buy into those archaic notions of masculine and feminine anyway, and 3) I didn't even know that sierraleone is a woman until this moment. :)

View Postsierraleone, on 20 August 2017 - 10:03 PM, said:

It rather feels like my posts were willfully misconstrued.  
I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Quote

Thank you for both of those links. I have heard of Life After Hate before, they do good work.  
You're welcome.  I'll have an even better one for you in about ten days.

Quote

Dialogue and diplomacy require participation and honest good faith efforts from both sides.
Sometimes one side is not willing to engage, and it may or may not be, even in part, other's side fault.
Violence is still the failure of it, but lets not pretend both sides are equally at fault for dialogue and diplomacy failing.  
If we don't make an honest, good faith effort because we think it's useless, then both sides are equally at fault. We have to live up to our ideals. If somebody fails, it should be the other guy. And it may still lead to war. But living up to our ideals leads to WWII.  Not living up to our ideals leads to Vietnam.

Quote

Ok, I regret how that sounds, or could sound, ominous, and it totally didn't carry across my meaning. Definitely mea culpa, unlike some of the other twisted interpretations of what I mean that Yadda yadda went over.  
And, again, I was just pointing out how it did sound, not that you were actually implying anything.

Quote

It was more to me about living up to the cultural and social promise of the emancipation and equal rights. Do you honestly think peoples can live in equitable dignity/standing when not only are they are not being judged by the content of their characters, but that some hold beliefs and say that certain peoples do not belong, and all that that carries?  
Depends on how many people are doing the judging.  But you're right, of course, that primitive thinking must be brought to extinction.

Quote

We've been telling people of colour over 150 years to wait for equality. I don't believe violence will bring it sooner but it is a sad reality that our brothers and sisters of colour will, by necessity, continue to have to work toward (with white allies), and wait for their full equality.
And not even just because of the Neo-fascists/Nazis/White-Supremacists/Nationalist. It is what it is, but yes, by necessity, we are working/waiting for a sizeable number of white people to catch up to a full understanding of the humanity of their brothers and sisters of colour, and until that happens there will not be full justice or equality.  
It might help if we stopped calling them colored, but I suppose that's a minor point at this juncture.

Quote

Hate-speech laws suggest that equality and dignity and inclusion of all people matter.  
I disagree.  I think that hate-speech laws suggest that we don't really believe our way of life is more civilized and that we fear the opposition too much to face them out in the open.

Quote

While I understand the US doesn't have hate-speech laws, they still have hate-crime laws, such as increasing the penalty for attacking a person because the attacker hates people with the same innate trait.
How do you feel about hate crimes laws, which IIUC has been upheld but the US Supreme Court?  
Of course motive should impact the penalty for a crime, otherwise there would be no difference between first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.  What does that have to do with freedom of speech?

Quote

Are your values completely non-violence, i.e. pacifist? Or just no pre-emptive strikes, that is, do you believe in peoples right to defend themselves when attacked? Do pacifist have more/better values than someone who believes in self-defence?  
I am a pacifist indeed, however that doesn't mean I don't believe in fighting when necessary. As I mentioned earlier, engaging in the Civil War, the World Wars, Afghanistan, and Iraq, were appropriate, because we need to defend ourselves and our allies. And it's far better to win a war than to lose it. But what does it prove? That we have a stronger military or that we're lucky?  Does it further cement the notion that might makes right?  It certainly does not prove that our way is the better way, and that is ultimately what needs to be done or else all the wars are for nothing.
Please visit The RJDiogenes Store. Posted Image   And my Gallery. Posted Image And my YouTube Page. Posted Image And read Trunkards. Posted Image  And then there's my Heroes Essays.  Posted Image

#53 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:40 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 18 August 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

As has been said before, Fascists/KKK/etc, are by their very nature a threat. At what point is their promoting their ideology crossing legal lines of harassment, uttering threats, intimidation? They do not trade ideas in good faith.
The very nature of their ideology is to cheat non-white/etc of their equality and all their rights therein.

People like to say Hate Speech is a slippery slope. Then when are the hate speech laws in other Western countries going to lead to the death, or at least deteriorating, of free speech and civil liberties there?

This actually touches somewhat about something I've been thinking about, for a day or so. We have the First Amendment, but there are things it doesn't "protect". You can't threaten someone, for instance, and then say "I was exercising my first amendment right." You also can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, etc. Is a KKK rally the same as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater? If the answer is yes, then it's simple: The KKK isn't allowed, it's a threat. However I don't think it's that simple. Yes the KKK stirs up anger in most people, but so does Westboro Baptist. Do we then say ok, Westboro is also not allowed? Then the question becomes: Who decides that? If the answer is the majority, well the majority have been wrong before.

Which is why I disagree with your comment of Hate speech is a slippery slope. It's not Hate speech that is the slippery slope, it's the banning of Hate Speech that IS the slippery slope.


Side note, and completely off topic: (Oh how nice it is to be able to copy and paste with a click of a mouse button again.)

Edited by Lord of the Sword, 21 August 2017 - 09:41 PM.

"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#54 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:55 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 19 August 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:


I wanted to distill my argument in my first post to just one question. What have you, or anyone you know, learned about history from a statue that you didn't already know from school? Besides how high and relentlessly pigeons can crap when they put their little bird brain minds to it?

Honestly, absolutely nothing. It's not the removal of the statues that is the problem, although that is how the issue is currently manifesting itself right now. It the motivation behind the removing that is the problem. It's the need to politically correct whitewash things that is the problem. A couple of examples: The photo that was taken of the firefighters raising the flag, after 9/11. The one that looked so much like the statue of the soldiers raising the flag. After that was taken, I believe it was either a change to the photo, or maybe a statue that was being built, of the photo. Where they wanted to change the race of the 3 white firemen, to one of Asian, African, and I think they also wanted to change gender of one to female...All in the name of being politically correct. It was the changing of what ACTUALLY took place that was the issue. Another example is after the racist killed the church members, banning of the confederate flag was all the rage...even to the point of removing the stars and bars from the General Lee car. I mean come on.

Now we have the removal of statues that represent history that people don't like. All in the name of trying to hide that history.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#55 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 11:05 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 21 August 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

Honestly, absolutely nothing. It's not the removal of the statues that is the problem, although that is how the issue is currently manifesting itself right now. It the motivation behind the removing that is the problem. It's the need to politically correct whitewash things that is the problem. A couple of examples: The photo that was taken of the firefighters raising the flag, after 9/11. The one that looked so much like the statue of the soldiers raising the flag. After that was taken, I believe it was either a change to the photo, or maybe a statue that was being built, of the photo. Where they wanted to change the race of the 3 white firemen, to one of Asian, African, and I think they also wanted to change gender of one to female...All in the name of being politically correct. It was the changing of what ACTUALLY took place that was the issue. Another example is after the racist killed the church members, banning of the confederate flag was all the rage...even to the point of removing the stars and bars from the General Lee car. I mean come on.

Now we have the removal of statues that represent history that people don't like. All in the name of trying to hide that history.

I think we all agree that history shouldn't be whitewashed/changed, but it already has been. Thanksgiving? History being changed to make kids believe the Pilgrims and the Native Americans were best friends. And the Confederate flag being flown these days, was never used. It is similar to one of the many Confederate flags, but it's not an accurate representation. History being changed for style, I guess. And so on.

Yes, it is silly to change that photo/statue. If they made a statue from 911, they should have made one honoring the many people that died in the line of duty.
I do find it silly to fly the Confederate flag, while claiming to be patriots of the USA.

I don't think it's in an effort to hide history, I think it's more along the lines of not wanting that history to be honored in such a way. Think about it, if your family was massacred and this was common practice until a war was fought or thinking just changed, would you want to see statues commemorating those that approved or fought to preserve the right to massacre people?
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#56 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 12:13 AM

View PostRJDiogenes, on 21 August 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 August 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

^ First off, RJ, you have a rather authoritarian habit of telling people what they know. You did it twice to me in this post and you did it to sierraleone before, and I've seen it happen before in other discussions. I'm afraid I have to call BS on that. You don't know what I know. I won't allow you to put words in my mouth or assume you know what's in my mind. That's a Trumpian style rhetorical dodge. He used it in his rogue press conference this past Tuesday telling the reporters he knew the neo-Nazis and counter protesters were equally violent and "YOU know it too". Go sell it somewhere else. I'm not buying it.  
Well, it sure looked to me like you were being deliberately obtuse, but I'll take your word for it.

Quote

You say you kept the entire context of my argument. That is demonstrably false. You plucked out a two sentence statement I made from another page of the thread and printed it by itself. It did not display your comment that precipitated it. That is out of context and typical of the parsing hit and run style of argumentation that leads to confusion, muddying, and the ability to post wholly nonsensical made up from whole cloth parrying assertions and suggestions that stray from your dialogue partner's genuine intentions to a snarky straw man riposte of your own.
I try to never nest more than one level of quotes. It makes the post unnecessarily long and is distracting. If I need to go back and refresh my memory, I just open another tab, since the thread is still there. The context still exists.

Quote

Cases in point, a canvassing of your replies to sierraleone in the same thread. After sierraleone opines that indigenous Americans and the African slave chattel brought to our nation had little success in impressing the invading European settlers and slaveowners with their ideology and worldview of a gentle better way in the face of the cultural genocide inflicted upon them ( the method you recommend to beat the bad guys), your reply was " You believe that Europeans committed intentional cultural genocide and you want to use that as a role model? " RJ, I know you have a fantastical writer's imagination and probably bounce around and inhabit all sorts of different worlds, but I ask you seriously, what planet are you on right now? How could anyone pull out such a Bizarro world question as that in response to sierraleone's post? Again that is Trumpian, attempting to express another's views or a circumstance in an opposite manner.  
Nope, it's just a little thought-provoking perspective. The statement was about ideology losing power under oppression rather than growing in power-- I was pointing out the parallel to the arguments against free speech. I wouldn't presume to tell you what you know, but, having been in conversations before, it would seem that anyone would be familiar with such a common debate tactic.

Quote

In another reply to sierraleone describing the existence of different exceptions to the general prohibition against murder/killing such as the death penalty, war, euthanasia, abortion, you respond "so we might as well go straight to killing them?" Where did that come from? What does it mean or in what manner bear relevance to her statement? Are you so caught up in your snark and self-assessed intellectual and masculine superiority that you have to stoop to assign violent intentions to a rhetorical opponent to try and "win" an argument? Again, Trumpian.
Nope, still not Trumpian. Again, the common debate tactic of pointing out the logical consequence of an argument. If we can justify suppressing somebody's free speech on the basis of the possibility that they want to kill someone, why not just go for the preemptive strike?  By applying the reasoning in one case to other cases, we can more clearly see its flaws.

Quote

In a third instance you accuse sierraleone of a lowered sense of ethical values by saying "So you seek to discredit the concept of ethics?" In reply to her obvious and valid premise that unless incompetent, a cheater will invariably win over those practicing ethical restraint. Where does that come from? An objective observation deserves your ad hominem attack?  
And yet again, pointing out the flaw in the argument. If the premise is that cheaters will always win over those who play fair, then the only logical conclusion is to never play fair.

Quote

I was not waxing enthusiastic about the trappings of war. I was being descriptive for effect. I don't like war anymore than you do. And I was discussing war in the context of the horror that can be born of hateful free speech. And nowhere have I advocated for infringement of free speech, as you've admittedly "assumed" that I have. That one's on you and your assumed prejudice.  
Or you failing to make yourself clear in the context of the discussion.  But, yes, I did assume you weren't just nitpicking my catchy slogan.

Quote

The Donald's false equivalence manifested in in equating neo-Nazis and their counter protesters because of "violence", the coming together of members of both groups jabbing with flagpoles, beating with sticks, shoving with shields, and fisticuffs. That pinpointing of a singular "tactic" to equate the other overarching ills or virtues of the opposing groups is where the false equivalency fallacy lies. As does your false equivalency of Left and Right in the same way. Just because you and I visit the bathroom and defecate in the same manner doesn't necessarily mean you and I are just alike. One single intersection of being does not validate a totality of integration.  
It seems to me like the overuse of the false equivalency meme is just a dodge by the Left to avoid dealing with their complicity in the current situation.

Quote

ETA: I missed one point. Your statement of the only way to beat the bad guys is with demonstration of our better way and playing fair is simply simplistic, not a legalistic literalism, whatever that is. Accuracy in terminology is vital to effective communication. To be simplistic is to treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they are. To ignore or not treat or consider all possibilities or issues of a possible scenario. Pacifism and standing on cornerstone principle of free speech  is perhaps acceptable when a guy is threatening to stick a knife in your ribs unless you hand over your wallet. You can always hand over the wallet and hope for the best and feel good you showed that guy your civilly superior nature. But what if you're black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or some other targeted minority of hate groups and your assailant who wants to handle your finances threatens you and then sticks you in the ribs anyway, just to express his tribal superiority? Would you die with a smile on your lips because you were true to your ethical cornerstone? Props to you, if so. There is a fine line between racist hate speech evolving into threat and that threat manifesting as physical violence. It can happen in an instant or be the result of deliberate planning, as was the "rally" in Charlottesville involving handy weapons such as pointed flag poles, sticks and cudgels, shields, and masks and kerchiefs for anonymity. Assembling and speaking freely is guaranteed by our Constitution, employing accoutrements to inflict violence while doing so is not. Keep the speech free, but a wise and prepared individual and public should be wary and prepared for hate speech attached to a vile and violent history to bear ill consequences.  
Now who's deliberately misrepresenting his opponent?  ;)

And by the way: Authoritarian? Masculine superiority?  :lol:  Are you sure you're not Left Wing? ;)  For the record: 1) I am the least authoritarian person you'll ever meet in your life, 2) I may or may not be the least masculine person you'll ever meet, but I don't buy into those archaic notions of masculine and feminine anyway, and 3) I didn't even know that sierraleone is a woman until this moment. :)

View Postsierraleone, on 20 August 2017 - 10:03 PM, said:

It rather feels like my posts were willfully misconstrued.  
I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Quote

Thank you for both of those links. I have heard of Life After Hate before, they do good work.  
You're welcome.  I'll have an even better one for you in about ten days.

Quote

Dialogue and diplomacy require participation and honest good faith efforts from both sides.
Sometimes one side is not willing to engage, and it may or may not be, even in part, other's side fault.
Violence is still the failure of it, but lets not pretend both sides are equally at fault for dialogue and diplomacy failing.  
If we don't make an honest, good faith effort because we think it's useless, then both sides are equally at fault. We have to live up to our ideals. If somebody fails, it should be the other guy. And it may still lead to war. But living up to our ideals leads to WWII.  Not living up to our ideals leads to Vietnam.

Quote

Ok, I regret how that sounds, or could sound, ominous, and it totally didn't carry across my meaning. Definitely mea culpa, unlike some of the other twisted interpretations of what I mean that Yadda yadda went over.  
And, again, I was just pointing out how it did sound, not that you were actually implying anything.

Quote

It was more to me about living up to the cultural and social promise of the emancipation and equal rights. Do you honestly think peoples can live in equitable dignity/standing when not only are they are not being judged by the content of their characters, but that some hold beliefs and say that certain peoples do not belong, and all that that carries?  
Depends on how many people are doing the judging.  But you're right, of course, that primitive thinking must be brought to extinction.

Quote

We've been telling people of colour over 150 years to wait for equality. I don't believe violence will bring it sooner but it is a sad reality that our brothers and sisters of colour will, by necessity, continue to have to work toward (with white allies), and wait for their full equality.
And not even just because of the Neo-fascists/Nazis/White-Supremacists/Nationalist. It is what it is, but yes, by necessity, we are working/waiting for a sizeable number of white people to catch up to a full understanding of the humanity of their brothers and sisters of colour, and until that happens there will not be full justice or equality.  
It might help if we stopped calling them colored, but I suppose that's a minor point at this juncture.

Quote

Hate-speech laws suggest that equality and dignity and inclusion of all people matter.  
I disagree.  I think that hate-speech laws suggest that we don't really believe our way of life is more civilized and that we fear the opposition too much to face them out in the open.

Quote

While I understand the US doesn't have hate-speech laws, they still have hate-crime laws, such as increasing the penalty for attacking a person because the attacker hates people with the same innate trait.
How do you feel about hate crimes laws, which IIUC has been upheld but the US Supreme Court?  
Of course motive should impact the penalty for a crime, otherwise there would be no difference between first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.  What does that have to do with freedom of speech?

Quote

Are your values completely non-violence, i.e. pacifist? Or just no pre-emptive strikes, that is, do you believe in peoples right to defend themselves when attacked? Do pacifist have more/better values than someone who believes in self-defence?  
I am a pacifist indeed, however that doesn't mean I don't believe in fighting when necessary. As I mentioned earlier, engaging in the Civil War, the World Wars, Afghanistan, and Iraq, were appropriate, because we need to defend ourselves and our allies. And it's far better to win a war than to lose it. But what does it prove? That we have a stronger military or that we're lucky?  Does it further cement the notion that might makes right?  It certainly does not prove that our way is the better way, and that is ultimately what needs to be done or else all the wars are for nothing.

RJ, the problem with trying to be the Henny Youngman of the EI debate squad and answering in snarky, condescending one-liners is while it may puff up your yuk yuk karma points in your inner self anointed humor hall of fame, it rarely communicates anything of substance. In your first salvo of parsed out quotes you claim you believe that I was being deliberately obtuse. But you'll take my word for it. Where and what do you think that I was being deliberately obtuse about? Everything I said in general, or just the instances where you tried to tell me what I know, or should know, and how it evidently should echo your own omniscience? And you'll take my word for what? That I'm not deliberately or otherwise obtuse? I never claimed to be, deny that I am, and reject it as your proffered mantle. These queries on my part would be unnecessary if you would focus more on saying something meaningful and understandable in lieu of a throwaway snark moment.

So in your world, twisting and misrepresenting the words and meaning of another in a discussion (sierraleone) so that you present them in a manner and context opposite to their true meaning is offering a thought-provoking perspective and engaging in a common and legitimate debate tactic? I'm not sure what thoughts you may have provoked in sierraleone, but I know the thought provoked here is it sounds like you might've prepped by studying Trump's GOP primary debate tactics. And just as an aside, the whole schtick of concluding every other stage of your argument with a dig telling me how how whatever your particular BS point might be (debate tactics specifically) that it would seem so common to general knowledge that anyone should be familiar with it. Kinda cheesy, RJ. I hope you wore a bib while typing this out to keep all that dripping condescension from falling off your lip onto your shirt. But if it makes you feel bigger and better please muddle on.



As for your tactic of eliminating context by parsing out quotes unconnected to the statements and content that generated them it may indeed be easier for you, but for anyone trying to follow the conversation it presents a hodgepodge of disconnected thought fragments, leaving it open to your interpretation or statements about previous points made and arguments offered. And sorry to have to say, but since you've proven yourself prone to misstating and willfully misrepresenting the positions of others (sierraleone's) in what you evidently consider to be legitimate debate protocol, prior context becomes all the more vital to act as a double check on such rhetorical skullduggery. As the discussion progresses and resumes in a subsequent thread, like this one, the original foundations of the subject being discussed and the follow up arguments become attenuated and forgotten, off on another page somewhere. Sure, you can always open another tab to check on what was said before, but to anyone trying to follow a logical thought train there are no dots to connect. And I think you like it that way. You try to take advantage of it. As does Trump who assumes his base will forget what he said the day or page before and peddles new and different/opposite stories and make-believe misrepresentations each new day that dawns.

You sing and tap dance the same old "standard debate strategy" song for the other two sierraleone statements that you trampled and crapped on. I seriously doubt there is any accredited debate society ( maybe Trump U?) or logic professor that would condone employing straw man arguments as a debate tactic. Because that's exactly what you did, RJ. Trying to get your big bad straw man to stick words in sierraleone's mouth about how she's going straight to killing or seeking to discredit the concept of ethics and then claiming that as a logical consequence is laughable. Formal debate settings and competitions are scored by the usage of rational, logically expressed argumentation, not fallacies. Honestly, your grasp of logic seems as tenuous and thin as Trump's understanding of the health care system.

Your feeling that the Left overuses the false equivalency meme as a dodge to cover their complicity in the current situation...wow what a meaningless and irrelevant statement in the context of the discussion.You sir, are yourself the quintessential Artful Dodger! You invoked that thoughtful piece of emptiness to reply to my assertion that your employment of the fallacy of false equivalence re the Left and Right is as invalid and logically skewed as Trump falsely equating neo-Nazis to anti-Nazi protesters. I explained that in my post to you and it seems it went in two eyes but didn't make it to your gray matter. Do you have the slightest inkling of what the Fallacy of False Equivalence entails? Have you ever cracked open a logic textbook? Seriously, as glibly as you toss around the subject of logic, you seem like a poseur on the subject to me.

As for your concluding paragraph, I found your declaration, " I am the least authoritarian person you'll ever meet in your life" so incredibly reminiscent of Donald Trump saying that he is "the least racist person that you will ever meet in your life." But I'll take your word for it.

And last and pretty much least, the all-time stereotypically douchiest remark of the classic insincere faux apologist in your first reply to sierraleone. The old chestnut, "I'm sorry you feel that way" patrician pat on the head for her suggestion that you willfully misconstrued her posts. How unfortunate for you to wind up in a message board discussion with two people with the bad taste and weak debate skills to fail to recognize your oh so common but nonetheless magical rhetorical legerdemain spinning forthright assertions into some barely recognizable opposite argument. Yes, sorry indeed.

Edited by yadda yadda, 22 August 2017 - 11:36 AM.


#57 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 11:17 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 21 August 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 19 August 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:


I wanted to distill my argument in my first post to just one question. What have you, or anyone you know, learned about history from a statue that you didn't already know from school? Besides how high and relentlessly pigeons can crap when they put their little bird brain minds to it?

Honestly, absolutely nothing. It's not the removal of the statues that is the problem, although that is how the issue is currently manifesting itself right now. It the motivation behind the removing that is the problem. It's the need to politically correct whitewash things that is the problem. A couple of examples: The photo that was taken of the firefighters raising the flag, after 9/11. The one that looked so much like the statue of the soldiers raising the flag. After that was taken, I believe it was either a change to the photo, or maybe a statue that was being built, of the photo. Where they wanted to change the race of the 3 white firemen, to one of Asian, African, and I think they also wanted to change gender of one to female...All in the name of being politically correct. It was the changing of what ACTUALLY took place that was the issue. Another example is after the racist killed the church members, banning of the confederate flag was all the rage...even to the point of removing the stars and bars from the General Lee car. I mean come on.

Now we have the removal of statues that represent history that people don't like. All in the name of trying to hide that history.

I get what you're saying, agree with some (changing 9-11 photos) disagree with most (defending the Confederate flag), but like a good American I'll defend to the death your right to talk about it.   :)

#58 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 04:24 PM

*
POPULAR

The short version: the whole conversation about "erasing history" starts from the false premise that public statues are about history.

The Statue of Liberty doesn't represent some event or person, it represents an idea.

Mount Rushmore exists to illustrate the values of our country, as exemplified by the actions and lives of four particular men. And it exists to show that we do great things; what kind of country carves an entire mountain into a statue? It doesn't exist to show us what those men looked like.

The 9/11 statue doesn't represent three specific people. It represents a large group of people, and the idea of their collective heroism and sacrifice. (It would be nice to also represent the idea that many of those heroes would have lived if not for Rudy Gulianni being a cheapass, but that's hard to represent in a statue.)

Public statues do not represent history. They represent the values that we, as a culture, uphold.

So yes. Tear down every public statue of the confederacy. Because their values are not our values. They represent one value and one ideal: "f*ck black people".

Edited by Omega, 22 August 2017 - 04:27 PM.


#59 RJDiogenes

RJDiogenes

    Idealistic Cynic

  • Demigod
  • 11,286 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 04:58 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 22 August 2017 - 12:13 AM, said:

View PostRJDiogenes, on 21 August 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 August 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

^ First off, RJ, you have a rather authoritarian habit of telling people what they know. You did it twice to me in this post and you did it to sierraleone before, and I've seen it happen before in other discussions. I'm afraid I have to call BS on that. You don't know what I know. I won't allow you to put words in my mouth or assume you know what's in my mind. That's a Trumpian style rhetorical dodge. He used it in his rogue press conference this past Tuesday telling the reporters he knew the neo-Nazis and counter protesters were equally violent and "YOU know it too". Go sell it somewhere else. I'm not buying it.  
Well, it sure looked to me like you were being deliberately obtuse, but I'll take your word for it.

Quote

You say you kept the entire context of my argument. That is demonstrably false. You plucked out a two sentence statement I made from another page of the thread and printed it by itself. It did not display your comment that precipitated it. That is out of context and typical of the parsing hit and run style of argumentation that leads to confusion, muddying, and the ability to post wholly nonsensical made up from whole cloth parrying assertions and suggestions that stray from your dialogue partner's genuine intentions to a snarky straw man riposte of your own.
I try to never nest more than one level of quotes. It makes the post unnecessarily long and is distracting. If I need to go back and refresh my memory, I just open another tab, since the thread is still there. The context still exists.

Quote

Cases in point, a canvassing of your replies to sierraleone in the same thread. After sierraleone opines that indigenous Americans and the African slave chattel brought to our nation had little success in impressing the invading European settlers and slaveowners with their ideology and worldview of a gentle better way in the face of the cultural genocide inflicted upon them ( the method you recommend to beat the bad guys), your reply was " You believe that Europeans committed intentional cultural genocide and you want to use that as a role model? " RJ, I know you have a fantastical writer's imagination and probably bounce around and inhabit all sorts of different worlds, but I ask you seriously, what planet are you on right now? How could anyone pull out such a Bizarro world question as that in response to sierraleone's post? Again that is Trumpian, attempting to express another's views or a circumstance in an opposite manner.  
Nope, it's just a little thought-provoking perspective. The statement was about ideology losing power under oppression rather than growing in power-- I was pointing out the parallel to the arguments against free speech. I wouldn't presume to tell you what you know, but, having been in conversations before, it would seem that anyone would be familiar with such a common debate tactic.

Quote

In another reply to sierraleone describing the existence of different exceptions to the general prohibition against murder/killing such as the death penalty, war, euthanasia, abortion, you respond "so we might as well go straight to killing them?" Where did that come from? What does it mean or in what manner bear relevance to her statement? Are you so caught up in your snark and self-assessed intellectual and masculine superiority that you have to stoop to assign violent intentions to a rhetorical opponent to try and "win" an argument? Again, Trumpian.
Nope, still not Trumpian. Again, the common debate tactic of pointing out the logical consequence of an argument. If we can justify suppressing somebody's free speech on the basis of the possibility that they want to kill someone, why not just go for the preemptive strike?  By applying the reasoning in one case to other cases, we can more clearly see its flaws.

Quote

In a third instance you accuse sierraleone of a lowered sense of ethical values by saying "So you seek to discredit the concept of ethics?" In reply to her obvious and valid premise that unless incompetent, a cheater will invariably win over those practicing ethical restraint. Where does that come from? An objective observation deserves your ad hominem attack?  
And yet again, pointing out the flaw in the argument. If the premise is that cheaters will always win over those who play fair, then the only logical conclusion is to never play fair.

Quote

I was not waxing enthusiastic about the trappings of war. I was being descriptive for effect. I don't like war anymore than you do. And I was discussing war in the context of the horror that can be born of hateful free speech. And nowhere have I advocated for infringement of free speech, as you've admittedly "assumed" that I have. That one's on you and your assumed prejudice.  
Or you failing to make yourself clear in the context of the discussion.  But, yes, I did assume you weren't just nitpicking my catchy slogan.

Quote

The Donald's false equivalence manifested in in equating neo-Nazis and their counter protesters because of "violence", the coming together of members of both groups jabbing with flagpoles, beating with sticks, shoving with shields, and fisticuffs. That pinpointing of a singular "tactic" to equate the other overarching ills or virtues of the opposing groups is where the false equivalency fallacy lies. As does your false equivalency of Left and Right in the same way. Just because you and I visit the bathroom and defecate in the same manner doesn't necessarily mean you and I are just alike. One single intersection of being does not validate a totality of integration.  
It seems to me like the overuse of the false equivalency meme is just a dodge by the Left to avoid dealing with their complicity in the current situation.

Quote

ETA: I missed one point. Your statement of the only way to beat the bad guys is with demonstration of our better way and playing fair is simply simplistic, not a legalistic literalism, whatever that is. Accuracy in terminology is vital to effective communication. To be simplistic is to treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they are. To ignore or not treat or consider all possibilities or issues of a possible scenario. Pacifism and standing on cornerstone principle of free speech  is perhaps acceptable when a guy is threatening to stick a knife in your ribs unless you hand over your wallet. You can always hand over the wallet and hope for the best and feel good you showed that guy your civilly superior nature. But what if you're black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or some other targeted minority of hate groups and your assailant who wants to handle your finances threatens you and then sticks you in the ribs anyway, just to express his tribal superiority? Would you die with a smile on your lips because you were true to your ethical cornerstone? Props to you, if so. There is a fine line between racist hate speech evolving into threat and that threat manifesting as physical violence. It can happen in an instant or be the result of deliberate planning, as was the "rally" in Charlottesville involving handy weapons such as pointed flag poles, sticks and cudgels, shields, and masks and kerchiefs for anonymity. Assembling and speaking freely is guaranteed by our Constitution, employing accoutrements to inflict violence while doing so is not. Keep the speech free, but a wise and prepared individual and public should be wary and prepared for hate speech attached to a vile and violent history to bear ill consequences.  
Now who's deliberately misrepresenting his opponent?  ;)

And by the way: Authoritarian? Masculine superiority?  :lol:  Are you sure you're not Left Wing? ;)  For the record: 1) I am the least authoritarian person you'll ever meet in your life, 2) I may or may not be the least masculine person you'll ever meet, but I don't buy into those archaic notions of masculine and feminine anyway, and 3) I didn't even know that sierraleone is a woman until this moment. :)

View Postsierraleone, on 20 August 2017 - 10:03 PM, said:

It rather feels like my posts were willfully misconstrued.  
I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Quote

Thank you for both of those links. I have heard of Life After Hate before, they do good work.  
You're welcome.  I'll have an even better one for you in about ten days.

Quote

Dialogue and diplomacy require participation and honest good faith efforts from both sides.
Sometimes one side is not willing to engage, and it may or may not be, even in part, other's side fault.
Violence is still the failure of it, but lets not pretend both sides are equally at fault for dialogue and diplomacy failing.  
If we don't make an honest, good faith effort because we think it's useless, then both sides are equally at fault. We have to live up to our ideals. If somebody fails, it should be the other guy. And it may still lead to war. But living up to our ideals leads to WWII.  Not living up to our ideals leads to Vietnam.

Quote

Ok, I regret how that sounds, or could sound, ominous, and it totally didn't carry across my meaning. Definitely mea culpa, unlike some of the other twisted interpretations of what I mean that Yadda yadda went over.  
And, again, I was just pointing out how it did sound, not that you were actually implying anything.

Quote

It was more to me about living up to the cultural and social promise of the emancipation and equal rights. Do you honestly think peoples can live in equitable dignity/standing when not only are they are not being judged by the content of their characters, but that some hold beliefs and say that certain peoples do not belong, and all that that carries?  
Depends on how many people are doing the judging.  But you're right, of course, that primitive thinking must be brought to extinction.

Quote

We've been telling people of colour over 150 years to wait for equality. I don't believe violence will bring it sooner but it is a sad reality that our brothers and sisters of colour will, by necessity, continue to have to work toward (with white allies), and wait for their full equality.
And not even just because of the Neo-fascists/Nazis/White-Supremacists/Nationalist. It is what it is, but yes, by necessity, we are working/waiting for a sizeable number of white people to catch up to a full understanding of the humanity of their brothers and sisters of colour, and until that happens there will not be full justice or equality.  
It might help if we stopped calling them colored, but I suppose that's a minor point at this juncture.

Quote

Hate-speech laws suggest that equality and dignity and inclusion of all people matter.  
I disagree.  I think that hate-speech laws suggest that we don't really believe our way of life is more civilized and that we fear the opposition too much to face them out in the open.

Quote

While I understand the US doesn't have hate-speech laws, they still have hate-crime laws, such as increasing the penalty for attacking a person because the attacker hates people with the same innate trait.
How do you feel about hate crimes laws, which IIUC has been upheld but the US Supreme Court?  
Of course motive should impact the penalty for a crime, otherwise there would be no difference between first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.  What does that have to do with freedom of speech?

Quote

Are your values completely non-violence, i.e. pacifist? Or just no pre-emptive strikes, that is, do you believe in peoples right to defend themselves when attacked? Do pacifist have more/better values than someone who believes in self-defence?  
I am a pacifist indeed, however that doesn't mean I don't believe in fighting when necessary. As I mentioned earlier, engaging in the Civil War, the World Wars, Afghanistan, and Iraq, were appropriate, because we need to defend ourselves and our allies. And it's far better to win a war than to lose it. But what does it prove? That we have a stronger military or that we're lucky?  Does it further cement the notion that might makes right?  It certainly does not prove that our way is the better way, and that is ultimately what needs to be done or else all the wars are for nothing.

RJ, the problem with trying to be the Henny Youngman of the EI debate squad and answering in snarky, condescending one-liners is while it may puff up your yuk yuk karma points in your inner self anointed humor hall of fame, it rarely communicates anything of substance. In your first salvo of parsed out quotes you claim you believe that I was being deliberately obtuse. But you'll take my word for it. Where and what do you think that I was being deliberately obtuse about? Everything I said in general, or just the instances where you tried to tell me what I know, or should know, and how it evidently should echo your own omniscience? And you'll take my word for what? That I'm not deliberately or otherwise obtuse? I never claimed to be, deny that I am, and reject it as your proffered mantle. These queries on my part would be unnecessary if you would focus more on saying something meaningful and understandable in lieu of a throwaway snark moment.

So in your world, twisting and misrepresenting the words and meaning of another in a discussion (sierraleone) so that you present them in a manner and context opposite to their true meaning is offering a thought-provoking perspective and engaging in a common and legitimate debate tactic? I'm not sure what thoughts you may have provoked in sierraleone, but I know the thought provoked here is it sounds like you might've prepped by studying Trump's GOP primary debate tactics. And just as an aside, the whole schtick of concluding every other stage of your argument with a dig telling me how how whatever your particular BS point might be (debate tactics specifically) that it would seem so common to general knowledge that anyone should be familiar with it. Kinda cheesy, RJ. I hope you wore a bib while typing this out to keep all that dripping condescension from falling off your lip onto your shirt. But if it makes you feel bigger and better please muddle on.



As for your tactic of eliminating context by parsing out quotes unconnected to the statements and content that generated them it may indeed be easier for you, but for anyone trying to follow the conversation it presents a hodgepodge of disconnected thought fragments, leaving it open to your interpretation or statements about previous points made and arguments offered. And sorry to have to say, but since you've proven yourself prone to misstating and willfully misrepresenting the positions of others (sierraleone's) in what you evidently consider to be legitimate debate protocol, prior context becomes all the more vital to act as a double check on such rhetorical skullduggery. As the discussion progresses and resumes in a subsequent thread, like this one, the original foundations of the subject being discussed and the follow up arguments become attenuated and forgotten, off on another page somewhere. Sure, you can always open another tab to check on what was said before, but to anyone trying to follow a logical thought train there are no dots to connect. And I think you like it that way. You try to take advantage of it. As does Trump who assumes his base will forget what he said the day or page before and peddles new and different/opposite stories and make-believe misrepresentations each new day that dawns.

You sing and tap dance the same old "standard debate strategy" song for the other two sierraleone statements that you trampled and crapped on. I seriously doubt there is any accredited debate society ( maybe Trump U?) or logic professor that would condone employing straw man arguments as a debate tactic. Because that's exactly what you did, RJ. Trying to get your big bad straw man to stick words in sierraleone's mouth about how she's going straight to killing or seeking to discredit the concept of ethics and then claiming that as a logical consequence is laughable. Formal debate settings and competitions are scored by the usage of rational, logically expressed argumentation, not fallacies. Honestly, your grasp of logic seems as tenuous and thin as Trump's understanding of the health care system.

Your feeling that the Left overuses the false equivalency meme as a dodge to cover their complicity in the current situation...wow what a meaningless and irrelevant statement in the context of the discussion.You sir, are yourself the quintessential Artful Dodger! You invoked that thoughtful piece of emptiness to reply to my assertion that your employment of the fallacy of false equivalence re the Left and Right is as invalid and logically skewed as Trump falsely equating neo-Nazis to anti-Nazi protesters. I explained that in my post to you and it seems it went in two eyes but didn't make it to your gray matter. Do you have the slightest inkling of what the Fallacy of False Equivalence entails? Have you ever cracked open a logic textbook? Seriously, as glibly as you toss around the subject of logic, you seem like a poseur on the subject to me.

As for your concluding paragraph, I found your declaration, " I am the least authoritarian person you'll ever meet in your life" so incredibly reminiscent of Donald Trump saying that he is "the least racist person that you will ever meet in your life." But I'll take your word for it.

And last and pretty much least, the all-time stereotypically douchiest remark of the classic insincere faux apologist in your first reply to sierraleone. The old chestnut, "I'm sorry you feel that way" patrician pat on the head for her suggestion that you willfully misconstrued her posts. How unfortunate for you to wind up in a message board discussion with two people with the bad taste and weak debate skills to fail to recognize your oh so common but nonetheless magical rhetorical legerdemain spinning forthright assertions into some barely recognizable opposite argument. Yes, sorry indeed.
While I'm amused by your monolith quoting style, as well as your stream-of-consciousness objections to imaginary points of order and your Gregorian chant of Just-Like-Trump, I'm having a hard time seeing what your actual point is and I'm getting the vague feeling that I'm being punk'd.  ;)  So we can talk again someday when there's something of substance to discuss.  :)
Please visit The RJDiogenes Store. Posted Image   And my Gallery. Posted Image And my YouTube Page. Posted Image And read Trunkards. Posted Image  And then there's my Heroes Essays.  Posted Image

#60 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 05:17 PM

That's ok, RJ. It's sometimes wiser to quit while you're behind. Though I was sure you were going to come up with something like how you wrote your master's thesis on " Fallacious Dirty Tricks, 101 Ways to Rule Debates" or mention how you clerked for Justice Brandeis on the USSC, or were the President of Logic Club in high school.

Since in a way you're suppressing your own free speech by bowing out here it reminds me of a quote from a great American concerning suppression of free speech....

" It costs you your moral authority, because you demonstrate that you can't live up to your own ideals. And it advertises that you have no confidence in your ideals, because you are afraid to face your opponents in open debate."

Truer words were never spoken. Goodbye, RJ.


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users