Despising them is the appropriate response to that. Saying that to her has not harmed her, so any further response would be excessive, no matter how tempting it may be.
I would agree with you there. One unacceptable action under provocation doesn’t make someone a bad person, whereas using that sort of insult pretty much means someone’s a dick, or seriously mentally ill.
It’s my opinion that the consequences for being a dick (outside of work) should be social, not legal or professional, where that dickery doesn’t directly harm someone.
There’s a practical advantage to allowing people with despicable views to express them - it means we know who those people are, so if they do progress to harming people it will be easier to find them.
Bullshit. Advocating that the Jews should be exterminated increases the likelihood that others might decide that this is a good idea, thus greatly increasing the chances of massive harm to Jews.
Speech is a kind of action. That doesn’t mean it should be treated the same by law – it shouldn’t. Advocacy for hateful ideas must remain legal.
But it’s still incredibly morally wrong.
I’ll note again that the only disagreement here is about morality, not about law.
No it’s not. That’s a trivial moral sin compared to advocating for genocide or slavery.
No, you can’t threaten them, that’s the point. Saying “all gays should be killed”, for example, is not a threat to me. Saying “I’m going to kill that dirty bottomist Steophan” is a threat, and saying to ThirdParty “go kill some gentlemen of the lavender persuasion” would be incitement.
In short, people have the right to express support for Nazi values, and I value that right despite the fact that I would probably have been in the camps (for 2 or 3 reasons, depending on how you count).
I also value that right – my high value on the right to free speech doesn’t conflict in any way with my extreme moral disapproval of advocacy for white supremacism.
Increasing the chance of a third party harming someone is not harming someone, and should not be treated the same.
That is ultimately a matter of opinion, I guess. I believe that violently silencing people is about the most harmful thing that can be done to a society, in the long run. I’ve formed that belief by looking at the societies that violently suppress speech - fascist, communist, theocratic - and comparing them to democratic, open societies that value speech.
Saying “gays should be killed” while marching past gay people isn’t a threat? It isn’t deliberately intended to intimidate and frighten gay people regardless of whether the marchers know whether a given individual is gay or not? It isn’t an expression of what the marchers would like to do - indeed, might do, given superior numbers and an absence of law enforcement - if they found out an individual were gay?
People do have the right to express support for Nazi values. People have the right to express objection to Nazi values. People do not have the right to punch people expressing dissenting views. But nonetheless there exist times - extreme times, to be sure - when violent resistance becomes necessary.
I agree it shouldn’t be treated the same – free speech must remain legal.
But morally speaking, I judge them on how much harm they cause, and in my judgment, advocacy for genocide clearly causes a lot more harm than punching someone.
But we’re talking about individuals, not societies. As far as societies, white supremacist societies are as bad as they come, when taken to the extreme – certainly as bad as the worst fascist (which obviously overlapped), communist, and theocratic societies, which can all be just as bad.
But for individuals, I judge advocacy for white supremacism as far worse than an individual trying to use non-lethal violence to suppress white supremacist speech, even if I also morally oppose such use of violence.
To say the Confederacy was worse than Nazi Germany, the USSR, Khmer Rouge Cambodia; even Caliphite ISISLand is ludicrous. I know you have your unique fetishes but reality must shine through. While slavery was a great evil the purpose of the South was not to exterminate the Slaves.
How are the Africans that sold their countrymen into slavery any better than WS? How are the Arabic slavers who slaved far longer than whites any better? The Khan Mongels?
The sins of our species are owned by all of us regardless of race.
I’ll argue that American slavery, as a whole, was as bad (but not worse – we’re talking as bad as humans can possibly get for things like American slavery, the Holocaust, Holodomor, Khmer genocide, etc.) as any other atrocity in the last few centuries of human history. Slavery resulted in the brutalization, rape, and murder of millions. When someone is raped and brutalized all their lives, and dies in their 20s or 30s due to long mistreatment and lack of care, I think it’s entirely reasonable to place that on the same moral plane as murder.
They’re not. Where do you get the impression I thought any differently?
That’s a weaselly pant-load and a convenient way to imply that nobody can be held responsible for anything because everybody is complicit in some way or another at some point through human history.
Right or wrong, they see themselves as a defensive measure. Looking at some of the so called alt-right’s actions and views, that is not completely unreasonable. Also, looking at the serious lack of timely and adequate response by Charlottesvile police to right wing violence, it MAY be justified.
Because you are not telling these africans and arabs and mongols that have been dead for centuries that they should also change their ways.
You are asking white people to change their ways, and white people do not need to change their ways as long as there was someone in the past that was worse.
So, if you want to blame anyone, you need to blame these people that are dead and gone, and convince them to become more socially acceptable.
Once you’ve done that, then you have permission to criticize modern society.
If I punch you in the nose for advocating for slavery or genocide, or intimidate you when you express these views, am I a worse person than you for having prevented/discouraged you from pursuing such policies?
I think slavery has a better outcome than genocide, but I still don’t think locking up someone in your basement and raping and brutalizing them for 30 years until they die is any less evil than killing them on day 1.
But opinions on morality can differ, quite obviously.