Comment by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2
15 days ago
Even if true, the point OP was making that you are dismissing their political stance for no other reason than your disagreement with it. It does not make for a useful, productive.. or any kind of conversation that results in some sort of mutually agreeable state.
Yeah, it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent. This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle".
I'm not tolerant of intolerance, I'm not OK with hate, and you shouldn't be either.
I truly do wish we could move a little past bumper sticker conversations, because it is HN. The guidelines of the site do expect more from all of us when we post. Still, allow me to address what you wrote.
<< This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle".
Then we are out of words and are unable to communicate further. What does that accomplish? What do you think happens when people stop talking? I would like you to think this through before reflexively answering. On this forum, I semi-consistently argue for at least trying to reach out to the other party before talking stops.
<< I'm not tolerant of intolerance,
In very simple terms, you are just intolerant. You just gave yourself a permission to hate ( because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate ). On the off-chance sarcasm was not obvious, it is not some sort of neat trick or get out of jail card, because there is some level of social permission for this.
<< it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent.
Friend, it is always ok to disagree. There is no need to qualify it. Unless I am not reading your post right, let me ask you a simple question:
'When is it not ok to disagree?'
> In very simple terms, you are just intolerant. You just gave yourself a permission to hate ( because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate ). On the off-chance sarcasm was not obvious, it is not some sort of neat trick or get out of jail card, because there is some level of social permission for this.
Yeah, I'm OK hating people who want to imprison/kill people for being born a particular way. You can change the way you think, they can't change the way they were born.
> Friend,
You're not my friend.
> Then we are out of words and are unable to communicate further. What does that accomplish?
We don't need to debate concepts like "should we send people to labor camps, without due process". Engaging people who think this way simply helps spread their ideas, and their ideas are a cancer.
Saying this community is debating these things because we believe in curiosity is just an excuse to allow fascists in our midsts without feeling guilt about it. If you have a bar and let nazis hang out, you're a nazi bar.
> 'When is it not ok to disagree?'
If your disagreement is about whether someone should be allowed to exist because of the way they were born, then it's not OK to disagree.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't exist. I'm suggesting that we, as a community, shouldn't allow you to participate in debate, because it simply helps spread your hate, and it makes the community as a whole worse to allow you to participate.
1 reply →
> because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate
I just want to suggest that there may be a difference between hating a person for something they were born with, or for an uncontrollable feature of a person, compared to hating someone for explicit choices they have made.
Not saying that hating people for any reason is necessarily okay, but I think an argument can be made that there is a difference between those two cases of hatred.
2 replies →