Even Piers Morgan is saying Liberals are unbearable.

[TheDeamon]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/20/piers_morgan_the_left_have_become_unbearable.html

What's the point of calling yourself a liberal if you don't allow anyone else to have a different view? This snowflake culture that we now operate in, the victimhood culture, the everyone has to think in a certain way, behave a certain way. Everyone has to have a bleeding heart and tell you 20 things that are wrong with them. I just think it is all completely skewed to an environment where everyone is offended by everything and no one is allowed to say a joke.

[TheDrake]

"Even him" makes it sound like he's some kind of paragon of liberals. He supported Thatcher, worked for tabloids for years, and generally likes to stir up controversy.

[TheDeamon]

"Even him" makes it sound like he's some kind of paragon of liberals. He supported Thatcher, worked for tabloids for years, and generally likes to stir up controversy.

I just remember him as the overly liberal talking head from the UK that replaced Larry King on CNN.

[Crunch]

The liberals get what they want, which is a humorless void where nothing happens, no one dares do anything or laugh about anything or behave in any way that doesn't suit their rigid way of leading a life.

It doesn't mean to say I agree with all of it, but it means I can understand it, and I understand why the liberals, my side, if you like, are getting it so horribly wrong. They just wanna tell people, not just how to lead their lives, but if you don't lead it the way I tell you to it's a kind of version of fascism. If you don't lead the life the way I'm telling you to then I'm going to ruin your life. I'm gonna scream abuse at you. I'm gonna get you fired from your job. I'm gonna get you hounded by your family and friends. I'm gonna make you the most disgusting human being in the world.

[D.W.]

Liberals:  If you act like a piece of human garbage, we're going to call you out on it instead of politely and quietly ignoring it.

Human garbage:  OMG those liberals are out of control!

It's good that these people can't help but self outing themselves.  I find myself laughing a lot when they do, so there's still plenty of humor to be found.

[Fenring]

Liberals:  If you act like a piece of human garbage, we're going to call you out on it instead of politely and quietly ignoring it.

Human garbage:  OMG those liberals are out of control!

I tend to be agree with you on issues of moderation and not going to either extreme, however on this point I would be cautious because when the same people saying they will call out human garbage are also the ones to define what constitutes human garbage, basically all we can expect is a garbage fire. Let's just look through history and see how that went for us. We can think of numerous religions or civilizations all saying that "we are X, and not-X is human garbage, which we will of course rightfully call out. It is our duty!" And naturally they always think their version of it is so clear that they're justified in whatever way they deal with these heathens/heretics/a-holes/garbage. It's so easy to know you're right and to call out the bad guys! It's so nice to be the good guys!

Now we may loosely agree that 'racism is bad' or some vague equivalent, but you're just as soon to find agreement on that "point" resulting in some cases in "well then it follows that since you hate racists you'll agree that you should hate Republicans, which everyone knows are racists, right??" Or maybe from other circles "if you hate jerks then you'll agree with me to hate religious people, whom history clearly shows as being jerks, right??" It always goes the same way.

My advice would be to reject anything that "everyone agrees" on. The more obvious they make it sound the more you should immediately suspect them and just step away. Even if by chance you might have actually agreed with them you lose little by stepping away anyhow, but may lose quite a lot by joining them.

[JoshuaD]

There is a fair analogy between the puritans and the far-left wing of the liberal party.  It's pretty ironic when you think about it.

[Grant]

Liberals:  If you act like a piece of human garbage, we're going to call you out on it instead of politely and quietly ignoring it.

Human garbage:  OMG those liberals are out of control!

It's good that these people can't help but self outing themselves.  I find myself laughing a lot when they do, so there's still plenty of humor to be found.

Such heroes. 

This is a mostly meaningless statement because there are no specifics.  I understand Piers Morgan isn't being specific either, but there are two basic propositions. 
1)  Every complaint calling someone human garbage made by every liberal is valid
2)  Some complaints are valid, some are not, here is where we draw the line. 

I don't think anyone really believes proposition 1.  You can address Piers Morgan and Stephen Fry etc with good faith, or you can respond with BS. 

Calling people human garbage is the last resort.  It's the end of dialogue.  Politics is built on dialogue.  When you call someone human garbage you've ended your ability to persuade.  So what is your point?  A temper tantrum?  Acting out?  Self actualization?  You've signaled to your tribe? 

Great men and women who have effected great change politically did not start off by calling people garbage.  MLK never called the most racist of asshats "human garbage".  Because he was actually trying to make things better.  Not just stunt.  The point is to open dialogue.  To persuade.  To make people think.  And finally to effect reconciliation.  You can't do that calling people "human garbage". 

The people that are doing this, on the far left and far right, are not doing themselves any good or their causes any good.  They are in the overall minority, and they are not attracting anyone.  The self righteous are doing nothing but circling their wagons. 

[Fenring]

Human garbage:  OMG those liberals are out of control!

It's good that these people can't help but self outing themselves.  I find myself laughing a lot when they do, so there's still plenty of humor to be found.

I neglected to address this last point, because the built-in kafkatrap is all-too-present and hard to refute. When someone in convinced that denying what they're saying proves that they're right and that you're part of the problem, it's difficult to even determine how to get through to that person. How do you convince someone you disagree - even that what they're doing is dangerous - when their worldview is that the only people who would disagree are the enemy? That's a straight-up solipsism. Good luck piercing that! You have to basically initiate the dialogue by saying that everything the person believes is false and go from there. Good luck with that one...

[TheDrake]

Racist lawyer whines about being harassed at work

“It’s the racist lawyer! F–k that guy!” one female attorney yelled, as she and other lawyers whipped out their cellphones to snap photos.

Is this really such a terrible reaction? Is this what Morgan is talking about?

Let's recap:

Schlossberg shot to infamy for his epic meltdown last Tuesday, when he screamed at workers at Fresh Kitchen on Madison Avenue and threatened to call immigration officials “to have each one of them kicked out of my country.”

“If they have the balls to come here and live off of my money — I pay for their welfare, I pay for their ability to be here — the least they can do is speak English,” he railed.

“If you intend on running a place in Midtown Manhattan, the staff should be speaking English, not Spanish!”

Is this someone who should be an officer of the court?

Lawyer Jesenia Ponce, who was in the same courtroom waiting for her case to be called, was disgusted.

“It’s ridiculous, an outrage. He should be disbarred,” she huffed.

I don't think its a bad thing that such people are getting called out and facing repercussions - finally.

Can people go too far sometimes? Sure. I've had some extremely liberal friends talk about how hard it is to even have a discussion within their own circles because of the derailment when someone treads upon sacred ground, which is growing. These are actual liberal activists, occupy type people, and they turn on their own over transgressions.

It is #2, where to draw the line, that we should be discussing.

[Grant]

“It’s the racist lawyer! F–k that guy!” one female attorney yelled, as she and other lawyers whipped out their cellphones to snap photos.

I don't think its a bad thing that such people are getting called out and facing repercussions - finally.

Really?

What are you achieving?  Is the guy still probably a racist?  What about the majority of people who think that yelling at a racist, and snapping pictures of him on a cellphone is also poor behavior?  You've alienated them as well.  You havn't built bridges, alliances, or anything.  They're shooting themselves in the foot acting in that manner.  They're just like that guy who straps on an AR 15 and walks into Wal-Mart with it after a mass shooting to make some sort of point.  They're setting back the cause.  Nobody serious about the problem of racism in this country acts that way. 

[TheDrake]

Sure. He's probably not going to stop being a racist. He's more likely to stop *acting* like a racist if he's facing repercussions, and he serves as an example for others to also not scream and carry on with a racist rant, and that is a good thing.

[Seriati]

I neglected to address this last point, because the built-in kafkatrap is all-too-present and hard to refute. When someone in convinced that denying what they're saying proves that they're right and that you're part of the problem, it's difficult to even determine how to get through to that person. How do you convince someone you disagree - even that what they're doing is dangerous - when their worldview is that the only people who would disagree are the enemy? That's a straight-up solipsism. Good luck piercing that! You have to basically initiate the dialogue by saying that everything the person believes is false and go from there. Good luck with that one...

The only tactic I've found effective is, while resting on my own impeccable credentials, to walk them through how two "correct" views they hold without question are in fact in direct conflict.  It's not always possible, but it turns up far more often than you'd expect when trying to educate those on the left.  Of course, on here I usually just argue for the position I think is correct without so much subterfuge.

[Grant]

Sure. He's probably not going to stop being a racist. He's more likely to stop *acting* like a racist if he's facing repercussions, and he serves as an example for others to also not scream and carry on with a racist rant, and that is a good thing.

This sounds like mob justice.  Peer pressure only works from within the group.  So he stops making racist rants.  Will he stop thinking like a racist or voting like a racist?  You havn't defeated racism.  You've swept it under the rug.  You've added another list of people this person is going to hate.  What is your plan for bringing this person back into the righteous fold? Or are they forever branded with a scarlet letter? 

Do you act like this personally, Drake?  Do you yell and scream "racist" at racists and point fingers and take pictures in an attempt to silence and modify behavior rather than thought?  If not, then why do you defend such activity? 

[Seriati]

It's funny, cause I'm willing to bet everyone alive has made a statement that could be construed as racist at some point in their life.  If that moment were recorded and goes viral what's left?

TheDrake are you really asserting that a momentary lapse should be cause to destroy a person?  Advocating for someone to be disbarred - ie destroying their economic livelihood - without any possibility of parole or appeal is designed to accomplish what?

What happens when the tables turn and the new consensus is that identity politics themselves were in fact racist (which they actually are) and those who practiced them become the new untouchables?

[Fenring]

TheDrake are you really asserting that a momentary lapse should be cause to destroy a person?  Advocating for someone to be disbarred - ie destroying their economic livelihood - without any possibility of parole or appeal is designed to accomplish what?

I'll go further than this. Even if they are definitely a racist (whatever that means) and it's not just a one-time lapse, is it correct to destroy a person even so? Is it righteous to hate someone for being wrong? Of course the argument always comes back this way: they hated us first, so we're just hating them back. That's already a lot to swallow, but even *if* we grant that they hated you first, you have to accept the belief that hateful actions, spite, threats, and spitting at them is the correct way to bring around someone of a despicable point of view. And I might even put aside the functional validity of that approach, as Grant mentioned just before. It is 'good' in some abstract sense to bully your way to the resolution you want?

[D.W.]

I tend to be agree with you on issues of moderation and not going to either extreme, however on this point I would be cautious because when the same people saying they will call out human garbage are also the ones to define what constitutes human garbage, basically all we can expect is a garbage fire.

Pretty sure you just defined society there.

Calling people human garbage is the last resort.  It's the end of dialogue.  Politics is built on dialogue.  When you call someone human garbage you've ended your ability to persuade.  So what is your point?

When someone in convinced that denying what they're saying proves that they're right and that you're part of the problem, it's difficult to even determine how to get through to that person. How do you convince someone you disagree - even that what they're doing is dangerous - when their worldview is that the only people who would disagree are the enemy?

Similar but different points.  One relates to people who have proven themselves unfit for the type of society another wants to belong to or strives to create.  The other is about denying that one’s actions have disqualified them for participation in that same striven for society. 

Dialogue can be focused on both people/groups agreeing that the societal goals should include both parts.  It is perfectly acceptable that one side should reject this dialogue.  Framing it as a character flaw of that group is ridiculous. 

Dialogue can be focused on the tolerance of one group towards another while they are being integrated towards a social goal.  Rejection of this type of dialogue is indeed dangerous, but it does require a shared goal.

There are positions and actions that are disqualifies for polite, or even functional & safe, society.  I'm all for people's ability to say whatever they want, but scoff at the idea that "protection of speech" means protection from the consequences of one's speech.  (other than illegal consequences at least).  As a rule I’m opposed to moderation/censorship.  I think people should be free to say whatever they want, and face the consequences. 

We may still be tribal creatures, but our tribes are far, far larger, and react more swiftly today than ever before.  That doesn't mean one cannot be rejected by the tribe.  If someone suffers social media exile/banishment, I think that shows we've come a long way in how we treat those who threaten tribal tranquility.  That goes for the "far-" anything fringes.

I think at issue is that, in today's media-centric world, those with power/money/influence can say anything they want and when they step over the line, for the most part, they can make an apology, maybe donate some money, go to some seminars (or rehab) and come out relatively unscathed.  One particular man of power can do so and remain entirely unrepentant and do just fine. 

Common citizens are waking up to two, sometimes shocking realizations.  First that these "new rules" don't apply to everyone.  The rest of us mere mortals suffer consequences for our words/actions.  Second, someone's always watching, and probably recording.  The things you say/do are far more likely to be noticed and shared and commented upon by far more people than ever before.  It's no longer just a few people who know your anti-social leanings/behavior.  One outlier incident could make you infamous in your city/state/country/world before you know it.

The influence of the tribe is immense but their protectiveness of the whole / agreed upon societal norms is still just as fierce as ever.  While we often lament about the internet / social media trend of bringing out the worst or most cruel in each other due to physical safety of distance or anonymity, we often forget the other side of the coin.  Rampant unchecked empathy.  People suddenly unafraid to stand up for (at least digitally...) the underrepresented and victimized.  While societal norms do seem to be far more fluid than before, the trends seem largely towards more acceptance punctuated by over reaction by those who fear losing power/influence... or even easy fodder for their brand of humor.

Granted those flare ups are sometimes met with further overreactions by those... being reacted against.  Then the (almost always hypocritical cries against that backlash.)  While it is ugly on both sides, looking at what each group is promoting / protecting tends to clear up moral ambiguity.  But that conflict equals add revenue, so it gets reported.  People lament the culture war and the divisiveness, but honestly, as bleak a picture as we see painted every day, things seem to be moving in a positive direction here.  Sure those against this movement are freaking out and acting more boldly than ever before, and people notice.  I think that will just hasten their trivialization within society.  And I’ll be cheering that downfall.

[Seriati]

You could also acknowledge that we expressly made it illegal for the racist to deny you a job or damage your livelihood, which is exactly what you are turning around and doing to them.  It's fundamentally against the principals of civil rights to call for them to be disbarred (ie, officially prohibited by law from working in their profession), which is indirectly (or sometimes directly) accessing the power of the state.  Boycotting them is another matter.

I'm just struck by how often the same people who believe they had an injustice put upon them or even their distant ancestors have no problem with visiting the same injustice on others.  And when the children of the racist grow up and rightly hate those who inflicted those injustices?   What then?  Are they still bearing the guilt of their forebearers?

[D.W.]

Really?

What are you achieving?  Is the guy still probably a racist?  What about the majority of people who think that yelling at a racist, and snapping pictures of him on a cellphone is also poor behavior?  You've alienated them as well.  You havn't built bridges, alliances, or anything.  They're shooting themselves in the foot acting in that manner.  They're just like that guy who straps on an AR 15 and walks into Wal-Mart with it after a mass shooting to make some sort of point.  They're setting back the cause.  Nobody serious about the problem of racism in this country acts that way.

Now this is dangerous thinking.  We should accept some level of despicable behavior because if we don’t they may turn into the next mass murderer?  Tell me you’re joking?  To many people attempts to slowly chip away at racism is a failed strategy.  Time to excise the cancer.  Will it be painful?  Are people going to be hurt by this?  Yep, but it may be the only thing that saves the patient.  It should be stopped because every now and then surgery is gonna throw a blood clot and cause damage?  I guess we could just do nothing and wait for the problem to correct itself.  Maybe another 5+ generations would do the trick?

[Seriati]

While societal norms do seem to be far more fluid than before, the trends seem largely towards more acceptance punctuated by over reaction by those who fear losing power/influence... or even easy fodder for their brand of humor.

My problem is here.  This is a false statement there is no trend for more acceptance.  The trend is for absolute rejection on real and perceived slights, with permanent excommunication, or an agreement by the "offender" to permanently abase themselves and spend eternity admitting they are fundamentally flawed, evil and apologetic.

There's nothing good or right about the pyschology involved there.  We're specifically endorsing hate as "the right" answer on often dubious moral grounds, that's no more valid than it was when it was the "religious right" doing it.  It's a repugnant philosophy to define other humans as "others" who are subhuman and forever tainted.

[D.W.]

And when the children of the racist grow up and rightly hate those who inflicted those injustices? 

They may grow up believing this, because of who their parents are, and the probable lamenting of that person.  But this is a person arguing that they shouldn't bear the responsibility of their own words and actions, rather that "society" (or "liberals" in this case) are to blame for their situation. 

But "rightly hate"?  "Injustice"?  Just because someone says a thing, doesn't make it true.  Your question still stands, but the framing of it is distressing.

[D.W.]

My problem is here.  This is a false statement there is no trend for more acceptance.

More acceptance of those we are discussing?  Those being "deplatformed" or suffering professionally?  No, you are correct.  THAT would be a false statement.  I was referring to the more global acceptance in society today, that is triggering these people who we do NOT accept. 

[Seriati]

D.W. imposing an injustice on a racist is still an injustice.  Period.  There's no "I'm a good liberal and therefore can wield the sword of injustice" exception to make it just.

[Seriati]

My problem is here.  This is a false statement there is no trend for more acceptance.

More acceptance of those we are discussing?  Those being "deplatformed" or suffering professionally?  No, you are correct.  THAT would be a false statement.  I was referring to the more global acceptance in society today, that is triggering these people who we do NOT accept.

There's no increased acceptance going on here.  There's no acceptance of individuals for who they are.  Find a black man that supports Trump and they aren't accepted.  It's a lie that the left is more accepting of people, even of people that have been historically disadvantaged.  They only accept those with identical views to their own, period.

[D.W.]

I agree with that statement.  I just believe you miss used the word in the quote above.  Unless using it to show the disconnect between the point of view of the person feeling maligned vs the reality of the situation.

[D.W.]

There's no increased acceptance going on here.  There's no acceptance of individuals for who they are.  Find a black man that supports Trump and they aren't accepted.  It's a lie that the left is more accepting of people, even of people that have been historically disadvantaged.  They only accept those with identical views to their own, period.

And I thought MY views on the current state of affairs were bleak...

[Fenring]

D.W., (this is in reply to your longer post a few posts back)

One thing I think you're confusing is the 'battle' between people who want to hate racists/X-ists and between their targets, and the battle between people who can't or won't engage in meaningful dialogue. You seem to be suggest that these groups are the same, and what I'm saying is that they absolutely are not. There are plenty of non-radical people, none of whom are "the racists" or "communists", who are ceasing to be able to engage in dialogue. And it has nothing to do with right vs left, because people are both sides are being shoved on either side of a trench which they cannot pass. *They* are the ones who cannot imagine having a common cause. You're framing this as "we're targetting the savages, and of course the savages don't like it." What I'm telling you is you are not targeting the savages, but are rather re-writing the dictionary to make anyone who disagrees into a savage. All of those regular people on the other side of the trench - which none of you dug individually - become those savages. They are the ones you're going to hate if you're looking to target people. And it's that "us or them" with an ever-growing "them" that cuts out dialogue. Being a racist doesn't even prevent dialogue; by its nature there is nothing antithetical to dialogue there. But being a hardcore puritan most certainly does prevent dialogue, and in fact is often predicated on the refusal to entertain another side to an issue.

The people you want to be talking about, who simply cannot coexist peacefully in a society, do exist, but they are few. I agree that we need to find ways to eliminate their avenues of power and progress. It seems clear to me that if business incentivizes psychopathic personalities to rise to the top, then there is something wrong with business. They are what they are: but rewarding them for winning is total B.S. Likewise there are actual sowers of discord out there; not that many, but enough that they can get that going. Many of them are in politics. We shouldn't tolerate that; I agree fully. But I disagree that we should scream at them and hate them. What we should do is remove their access, or more properly remove what they get out of being in those positions so that they won't be attraced to them and dominate them. That's a systemic issue, not a moral one.

I spend a fair amount of time reading on a Trek board, and this board does get into politics a lot of the time. There are super-liberals on that site, and also super-conservatives. Like, bleeding heart in discussion with snowflake-haters. There are some dust-ups, but the remarkable thing is that both sides agree that the Trek way (the Federation ethos) is the best way. And the conservatives believe that the Federation espouses their position, and likewise for the liberals. It's an amazing case study, because they literally agree on a common goal, do talk about it, and yet each insist that common goal represents their belief system and not the other. So this notion of "them and us" is shown to be so feeble in getting down to what we all really want, as both sides literally agree on an end-goal, and a manner of portraying it, and yet disagree on terminology and tone. Do you see? Imagine if one Trek lover called the other a savage because he disagreed about 'snowflake morals' (he must be the enemy if he disagrees with obvious premises, right?) even though they both agree on the final vision of a society. That would be truly ridiculous.

My general point is that chastising and hating "the enemy" presupposes you know who and what that is, can do something helpful about it, and aren't just creating boogeymen to lash out at because it's a feel-good thing to find enemies and smite them.

[Seriati]

Fen,

That's the point.  The people on the two sides are generally good people who want something roughly consistent with the other side's goals but disagree on how to get there and what to sacrifice.  It's our leaders and social engineers in the media who see the potential for power in digging the trench.  And they are relentlessly pushing this narrative to try and convince ordinary people to become intolerant haters.  It's completely about power.

Those who can't function in society are a tiny group, and they don't align with any set politics.  Racism was fought by the early generation by understanding that for most racists it came from ignorance not mental disease, and could be corrected by education and compassion.  That mindest brought us out of darkness and the current mindset is pushing us back in.

What's not a tiny group is the trained intolerants.  These are people are being trained and conditioned to ostracize and destroy based on purity tests.  The only way to bring them out of it is to pierce the bubble of the untruths and anti-human beliefs they have incorporated into their beings.

[Fenring]

What's not a tiny group is the trained intolerants.  These are people are being trained and conditioned to ostracize and destroy based on purity tests.  The only way to bring them out of it is to pierce the bubble of the untruths and anti-human beliefs they have incorporated into their beings.

I should reiterate that this isn't a liberal or a conservative thing, but that each person is always in danger of being radicalized into a zealous puritan. Maybe the popular liberal movement has more of a zealous public face right now, but all of us can be whipped up into hating something despicable and wanting to hunt witches. The danger is in the belief that it's only other people that can fall into this.

[Seriati]

There's no question that the religious right has trained its share of intolerants.  But the current trend is massively towards leftist intolerants.

[D.W.]

You're framing this as "we're targetting the savages, and of course the savages don't like it." What I'm telling you is you are not targeting the savages, but are rather re-writing the dictionary to make anyone who disagrees into a savage

First:  I often speak in generalities or my own observations.  It’s a handy way to avoid making *censored* up that is “false”.  Everyone targets / qualifies “savages” differently.  Don’t make the mistake of assuming you can pluck out some (far-left?) criteria and attribute it to me.   That said, I’m sure everyone feels that THEY are accurately labeling “savages” and not causing much/any collateral damage.  So your point is a good one, even if falling into that which it seeks to criticize. 

They are the ones you're going to hate if you're looking to target people. And it's that "us or them" with an ever-growing "them" that cuts out dialogue.

I don’t hate these people.  I find them pathetic sure, and I want them to either reform or be shamed into silence.  The use of hate (while I’m sure there are those who do hate them) attempts to form an equivalency.  One I reject.

Being a racist doesn't even prevent dialogue; by its nature there is nothing antithetical to dialogue there. But being a hardcore puritan most certainly does prevent dialogue, and in fact is often predicated on the refusal to entertain another side to an issue.

  Pick one:
A)  We need open dialogue because SOME level of racism is acceptable and should be tolerated.
B)  We need open dialogue because some/most racists just don’t know better.
C)  <something actually compelling>

My general point is that chastising and hating "the enemy" presupposes you know who and what that is, can do something helpful about it, and aren't just creating boogeymen to lash out at because it's a feel-good thing to find enemies and smite them.

And my general point is that while this is excellent advice, there ARE “enemies” to the common good and society as a whole and it is foolish to pretend this is just a differing of opinion and consensus and middle ground can pave a path forward.


Seriati is correct about the trench and who profits by it.  I only take issue with those who believe they are more moderate and feel attacked by others, all while they seek to excuse or defend those trench diggers claiming to represent them.

[D.W.]

There's no question that the religious right has trained its share of intolerants.  But the current trend is massively towards leftist intolerants.

I just cannot leave this stand.  WHAT is it you feel the left is intolerant of?

Is rejection of intolerance JUST AS BAD as someone intolerant of other racists/religions/sexuality or other things?

The current trend is massively towards "Don't be *censored*ty to others and let us live our lives as we see fit and give us an equal opportunity to do so."

Yer god damned right I feel intolerant towards anyone attempting to oppose that trend.

[TheDeamon]

TheDrake are you really asserting that a momentary lapse should be cause to destroy a person?  Advocating for someone to be disbarred - ie destroying their economic livelihood - without any possibility of parole or appeal is designed to accomplish what?

I'll go further than this. Even if they are definitely a racist (whatever that means) and it's not just a one-time lapse, is it correct to destroy a person even so? Is it righteous to hate someone for being wrong? Of course the argument always comes back this way: they hated us first, so we're just hating them back. That's already a lot to swallow, but even *if* we grant that they hated you first, you have to accept the belief that hateful actions, spite, threats, and spitting at them is the correct way to bring around someone of a despicable point of view. And I might even put aside the functional validity of that approach, as Grant mentioned just before. It is 'good' in some abstract sense to bully your way to the resolution you want?

I'd just revert to "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you." If they've done something wrong according to your world view, you should handle it like you'd prefer somebody to approach you should you have done something wrong according to theirs.

If you are unable to meet your own standard, you'd best stop trying to correct others.

[TheDeamon]

I tend to be agree with you on issues of moderation and not going to either extreme, however on this point I would be cautious because when the same people saying they will call out human garbage are also the ones to define what constitutes human garbage, basically all we can expect is a garbage fire.

Pretty sure you just defined society there.

In the broader context his statement was given in, pretty safe bet it is not "society" defining anything, but rather a small group of activists who have appointed themselves arbiters of "society's values." Which is how many tyrannies start, because "society is backing them" except what society is actually doing is trying to stay well clear of them, and failing miserably.

Which is how you get things like Donald Trump wining the Presidency. Because "Society" isn't as clear cut as you'd like it to be(Millions of voters found both options for President deplorable enough they simply didn't vote).

[Fenring]

Is rejection of intolerance JUST AS BAD as someone intolerant of other racists/religions/sexuality or other things?

The current trend is massively towards "Don't be *censored*ty to others and let us live our lives as we see fit and give us an equal opportunity to do so."

I can't help but feel that on this particular topic you've boxed yourself in and can't see outside of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's how some of these posts come across. I'm trying show that labeling anyone <not-us> as being intolerant/hateful/racists/etc is puritanism in its purist form. Thinking that one side has got the monopoly on righteousness is where the danger starts. But *of course* they don't ever think of it as "our side". That would imply there's another side worth considering. So instead it morphs into "we just believe in goodness and justice", which then transitions into "if you're not with us, you're against us", and finally "since we're on the side of good, if you disagree you are therefore on the side of bad." It's easy to see from there how there are all sorts of nasty things you can say about the 'bad guys.' And voila, dehumanization 101.

I think your good-natured way of looking at things runs the risk of assuming that others basically feel as you do about these things: leave us alone, don't harass people, and we'll get along ok. If you're harassing people, I've got a problem with you. This is a totally understandable position, on its face. But you're also not the sort of person going around searching long and hard for "those who don't leave us alone", and worrying about who 'they' are. You may not see every encounter as being a possible altercation with "them", and whisper to your comrade about 'they may be nearer than we think'. If I had to guess, I don't think you point fingers at random people, saying "You! Are you one the ones who won't leave us alone? You'd better not be! Because we won't tolerate them." And then you chase after them while shaking your arm, saying "why won't you leave us alone??"

This last bit was a touch on the humor side, but sort of to paint a picture. We're not talking about people advocating for basic respect and letting others live in peace. If you think most people in America disagree with that proposition I won't agree. What we're talking about is people who actively thrive on pointing out bad guys, and who absolutely rail against those who transgress, mobbing them online (or in person), not because swift action is needed in an emergency, but because they like it. I don't think that's you, but I think that sort may have fooled you, using terminology that sounds agreeable to you, into thinking they share your belief. But the opposite is more likely true: people who've developed a need for zealotry would actually be miserable to learn that there's no villain to hunt down, whereas I suspect you'd be most gratified to see people getting along.

[TheDeamon]

There's no increased acceptance going on here.  There's no acceptance of individuals for who they are.  Find a black man that supports Trump and they aren't accepted.  It's a lie that the left is more accepting of people, even of people that have been historically disadvantaged.  They only accept those with identical views to their own, period.

And I thought MY views on the current state of affairs were bleak...

It's the truth, you can ignore it if you want. But you do so at your own peril.

They only accept "the disadvantaged" so long as those "disadvantaged persons" agree with their "Enlightened Liberal Views" otherwise, the long knives come out should that person disagree. In many respects, at that point, that CIS-gendered White Male who has been "outed as a racist" probably has an easier time of things, oddly enough.

[Seriati]

A)  We need open dialogue because SOME level of racism is acceptable and should be tolerated.

Isn't that the case?  Or are you now opposed to racial preferences in getting employment or seats at a University?  Are the Asian students excluded from Harvard the victims, or is it the Hispanic and Black students who gets in?  Is it really okay to be racist against white students if this is your default position?

Shouldn't we be seeking color blind policies if no level of racism is acceptable?

B)  We need open dialogue because some/most racists just don’t know better.

This is just factually true.  Isn't it also true that the largest reduction in racism has come from education?  If it weren't we wouldn't be where we are today.

Are you just denying science on this point?

Or are you conflated racism and discrimination and difference?

C)  <something actually compelling>

No idea what this means.

But I note, that you can't truly be on the high horse you claim to be and still give any credence to identity politics.

There's no question that the religious right has trained its share of intolerants.  But the current trend is massively towards leftist intolerants.

I just cannot leave this stand.  WHAT is it you feel the left is intolerant of?

Everything.  I literally just saw AOC decry people racists for disagreeing with Socialism:

Calling people who believe in democracy, civil + economic rights, and racial justice “communist” has a long + rich history w/ white supremacy in the US.

It doesn't matter what you disagree with her on, there's no basis for a belief that good people can disagree, instead "good people" is defined exclusively as those who agree with her.

Is rejection of intolerance JUST AS BAD as someone intolerant of other racists/religions/sexuality or other things?

Depends on what you mean.  Rejection of things may be good, may be bad.  Rejecting religious views that subjagate women?  That's good.  Rejection of religions that don't?  Not so good, but maybe from an atheist's views still good.  Oppressing practitioners of the first?  Universally good, of the latter pretty much universally bad (assuming there isn't another basis hidden in there).

But the left is not practicing a rejection of "intolerance."  Certainly not to the tune of 60+ million people who voted for Trump being intolerant.  The left is "rejecting" strawmen that it labels with nasty statements.  Every single person I know with a "Reject Hate" sign in their yard has personally acted from hate on fairly arbitrary and petty basis (and I don't mean politics, I mean literally things like excluding a person and talking bad about them because they carried the wrong purse).

Nor does the left reject people who are actually intolerant.  They embrace multiple groups of people from countries and belief systems that endorse hate and intolerance.  That's not a rejection of intolerance it's specific adoption and endorsement of it.

The current trend is massively towards "Don't be *censored*ty to others and let us live our lives as we see fit and give us an equal opportunity to do so."

It's not remotely.  Post anything about your life and living it as you see fit in a way that isn't approved by the left on FB and watch as you get hate dumped all over your page, defriended and ostracised.  It doesn't even have to be politically connected.

Yer god damned right I feel intolerant towards anyone attempting to oppose that trend.

Sigh.  You don't.  You just feel aggrieved at the people you've been told to point to as being intolerant.  And true motte bailey style when the racist label is applied to 60 million people, you want to point to an inbred Klansman somewhere who is in fact most likely a registered Democrat as justification.  And that's not really a personal statement about you, just the literal message you are being uncritically fed.

[TheDeamon]

There's no question that the religious right has trained its share of intolerants.  But the current trend is massively towards leftist intolerants.

And even more problematic, this rising bunch is secular. That has potential to set things back in a number of other ways if they continue to push, and that would be very bad. Especially from the perspective of many us who hold to ("secularized") religious positions.

[TheDrake]

Do you act like this personally, Drake?  Do you yell and scream "racist" at racists and point fingers and take pictures in an attempt to silence and modify behavior rather than thought?  If not, then why do you defend such activity?

Not really my style. I would quietly and firmly go about damaging his career through a variety of media and if applicable, personal connections. If this happened in my office, I'd go straight to HR and fill out a form and argue in the strongest possible terms that the employee should be let go.

It's funny, cause I'm willing to bet everyone alive has made a statement that could be construed as racist at some point in their life.  If that moment were recorded and goes viral what's left?

TheDrake are you really asserting that a momentary lapse should be cause to destroy a person?  Advocating for someone to be disbarred - ie destroying their economic livelihood - without any possibility of parole or appeal is designed to accomplish what?

That's why it is a case-by-case decision. If somebody accidentally wore some clothes that somebody called cultural appropriation? Nope. Not even close.

This guy? Let's break it down. In order to make his tirade he has to:

A. Believe that brown people speaking Spanish are immigrants and not true Americans, because true Americans only speak English.
B. Believe that immigrants are all here to steal welfare.
C. Feel that it is appropriate to scream at people in a public market.

Now lets consider what he does for a living. If he's a bus driver, I probably don't feel he has to lose his job, but there are some repercussions.

This is a person who is supposed to literally be about justice. He's clearly had training in the proper way to behave. Is he going to be fair to witnesses, clients - given his bias?

The NY state bar association includes this line about professional conduct:

(h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.

Seems to me this incident could qualify.

Now let's see if it is a one time offense. Nope.

Since last week's video went viral, two men came forward with other stories about Schlossberg becoming belligerent in public.

Willie Morris said Schlossberg bumped into him on the sidewalk and called him an "ugly f***ing foreigner" (Morris is from Massachusetts).

In another instance, Isaac Saul described Schlossberg angrily yelling at an ultra-Orthodox Jewish man who was participating in a protest, accusing him of being a fake Jew. Both encounters were caught on video.

Is it permanent destruction? That's not exactly what people were calling for in all cases.

US Rep. Adriano Espaillat told CNN that he and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. filed a formal complaint against Schlossberg with the New York State Unified Court System, seeking to have his law license suspended until he "amends his actions."

Morris said Schlossberg will "be more careful about how he acts in public for a while" and that the lawyer should demonstrate his "change of heart" through "actions instead of blanket apologies."

[TheDeamon]

You're framing this as "we're targetting the savages, and of course the savages don't like it." What I'm telling you is you are not targeting the savages, but are rather re-writing the dictionary to make anyone who disagrees into a savage

First:  I often speak in generalities or my own observations.  It’s a handy way to avoid making *censored* up that is “false”.  Everyone targets / qualifies “savages” differently.  Don’t make the mistake of assuming you can pluck out some (far-left?) criteria and attribute it to me.   That said, I’m sure everyone feels that THEY are accurately labeling “savages” and not causing much/any collateral damage.  So your point is a good one, even if falling into that which it seeks to criticize.

OTOH, I don't think more than a very tiny fraction of the population in the United States qualifies for the "Savages" label, and most of them should be getting very extensive mental health assistance.
 

They are the ones you're going to hate if you're looking to target people. And it's that "us or them" with an ever-growing "them" that cuts out dialogue.

I don’t hate these people.  I find them pathetic sure, and I want them to either reform or be shamed into silence.  The use of hate (while I’m sure there are those who do hate them) attempts to form an equivalency.  One I reject.

Your issue here is that the ones that will be "shamed" into falling silent aren't the ones you truly need to correct. And doing that to them has a 50/50 chance of actually "correcting them" when shame is the instrument being used. For the others, you didn't actually "shame them" all you did you was communicate to them that they were in "hostile territory" and their best option moving forward was to act more subtly going forward. All you did is move them underground where most people will then become oblivious to their being racists and unable to intervene should they start seeking further converts(that other guy who actually was shamed).

[D.W.]

I can't help but feel that on this particular topic you've boxed yourself in and can't see outside of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's how some of these posts come across. I'm trying show that labeling anyone <not-us> as being intolerant/hateful/racists/etc is puritanism in its purist form. Thinking that one side has got the monopoly on righteousness is where the danger starts. But *of course* they don't ever think of it as "our side". That would imply there's another side worth considering. So instead it morphs into "we just believe in goodness and justice", which then transitions into "if you're not with us, you're against us", and finally "since we're on the side of good, if you disagree you are therefore on the side of bad." It's easy to see from there how there are all sorts of nasty things you can say about the 'bad guys.' And voila, dehumanization 101.

I understand.  I really do.  This argument strikes me as one I myself would make on many even most political issues.  But I do have red lines.  Those who cross it, do so by acting inhumanely.  It is a condemnation of their acts or words.  If you see that as ME having dehumanized them, then how could I possibly debate that?  So in at least this regard, we are “boxed in”. 

One side, as a politically labeled right/left or conservative/progressive team does not have a monopoly on righteousness.  But anyone speaking out against an obvious vocal racist/supremacist?  They do.  End of story.  No debate, no discussion, no middle ground.  How we react to those people IS worthy of debate.  At this point, I reject the “just ignore it or you’ll make it worse” approach.  Yet it comes across as something radical/puritanistic/dangerous.  I find that interesting.

None of us have to accept the mantle of everything “our side” claims to, or is said to encompass.  What we do have to accept is that others will judge us by what we say or do, and who we defend.

But you're also not the sort of person going around searching long and hard for "those who don't leave us alone", and worrying about who 'they' are. You may not see every encounter as being a possible altercation with "them", and whisper to your comrade about 'they may be nearer than we think'. If I had to guess, I don't think you point fingers at random people, saying "You! Are you one the ones who won't leave us alone? You'd better not be! Because we won't tolerate them." And then you chase after them while shaking your arm, saying "why won't you leave us alone??"

Bogymen indeed. 

What we're talking about is people who actively thrive on pointing out bad guys, and who absolutely rail against those who transgress, mobbing them online (or in person), not because swift action is needed in an emergency, but because they like it. I don't think that's you, but I think that sort may have fooled you, using terminology that sounds agreeable to you, into thinking they share your belief.

They DO share my beliefs.  What you are talking about is a differentiation of what motivates them.  It’s true we, as humans, excuse a lot of behavior we would not want to do ourselves, when it is being done towards an end we agree with.  But that’s why we have laws, and agreed upon socially acceptable behavior.  Those who cross those lines, face consequences.  As do those who encourage them. 

Am I possibly too silent on the bogymen of the left?  Yes.  But that probably stems from the fact I’ve never seen, spoken with or even know a person who knows a person who fits these bogymen.  I suppose maybe I would take the ‘threats from the far left’ more seriously if I did.  So far my “intolerance” has only resulted in a few less awkward days visiting with some of my extended family.

[D.W.]

It's the truth, you can ignore it if you want. But you do so at your own peril.

They only accept "the disadvantaged" so long as those "disadvantaged persons" agree with their "Enlightened Liberal Views" otherwise, the long knives come out should that person disagree. In many respects, at that point, that CIS-gendered White Male who has been "outed as a racist" probably has an easier time of things, oddly enough.

This is a sterotype I've never observed in the wild.  Guess I'm fortunate to live in a "purple" state...

[D.W.]

Or are you now opposed to racial preferences in getting employment or seats at a University?

Did I say that I was?  I mean, I've been on Ornery for a long time now, so maybe I have defended this in the past?  Smarter people than I have tried to figure out how to correct against systemic racisim.  I'm not opposed to it, nor infavor of it.  I would prefer race not be a consideration at all but I don't have the first idea how to pull that off.

Isn't it also true that the largest reduction in racism has come from education?  If it weren't we wouldn't be where we are today.

Are you just denying science on this point?

Or are you conflated racism and discrimination and difference?

At this point in our country's history, how isolated do you have to be for this to be true?  How much of that is mistaking causation for coralation?  Does this data hold true for k-12 range only as it does those who go out to higher education and typically are exposed to those outside of their own group?  (an honest question)  But we are talking about one example being a lawyer.  That's pretty highly educated.  So it obviously isn't as simple as that.  Seems to me, getting away from racist family/social groups would be the biggest factor in breaking from those views.  But maybe I'm wrong.  I haven't studied the science of it.

"C)  <something actually compelling>"

No idea what this means.

But I note, that you can't truly be on the high horse you claim to be and still give any credence to identity politics.

It means, "Please fill in the blank with a real option."  I've never claimed to be a proponent of "identity politics".  I normally see this used as a smear by those on "the opposite team", so you tell me.  Do I fit the definition of an identity politics proponent?  Were it up to me people could identify as whatever the heck they wanted.  I'm in the "politics" of making sure they aren't treated unfairly because of it.  I'm not personally leveraging anyone's identities to rally them for personal gain.

But the left is not practicing a rejection of "intolerance."  Certainly not to the tune of 60+ million people who voted for Trump being intolerant.

Most people dont' feel this way.  Some of us blame the choice they had.  I get voting against Hillary and gambling with Trump.  I get voting with your wallet and believing Trump would be better for you.  I do a little, "Wow you really lost that bet!"  or "wow do you still think it was worth all this to keep her out of the white house?".  If they STILl support him, I start to get a bit closer to intolerance.  It varies depending on how much is just them holding their nose and taking the bad medicine vs actually believing he is a net positive for this country.

Every single person I know with a "Reject Hate" sign in their yard has personally acted from hate on fairly arbitrary and petty basis (and I don't mean politics, I mean literally things like excluding a person and talking bad about them because they carried the wrong purse).

That is a fairly all-or-nothing view on "hate".  Be a paragon of virtue or keep your views to yourself? 

Nor does the left reject people who are actually intolerant.  They embrace multiple groups of people from countries and belief systems that endorse hate and intolerance.  That's not a rejection of intolerance it's specific adoption and endorsement of it.

You are trying to conflate the views of 'people on the left' with the politics of the Democratic party.  As one who loves to generalize himself, you do get this is a large generalization, right?

And true motte bailey style when the racist label is applied to 60 million people, you want to point to an inbred Klansman somewhere who is in fact most likely a registered Democrat as justification.

I DO point to the inpred klansman (though they often wear suits and come from nice families too), and explicitly do NOT point to 60 million people who happened to have voted contrary to what I believe is in the best interest of this country.  (Even if I do think Hillary would have *censored*ed things up, just to a lesser extent).

And that's not really a personal statement about you, just the literal message you are being uncritically fed.

It's easy to get confused about what someone is being fed when you are putting words into their mouth. 

[D.W.]

For the others, you didn't actually "shame them" all you did you was communicate to them that they were in "hostile territory" and their best option moving forward was to act more subtly going forward. All you did is move them underground where most people will then become oblivious to their being racists and unable to intervene should they start seeking further converts(that other guy who actually was shamed).

This is an interesting point.  Maybe you are correct?  My counter narrative is that, in moving them underground, you lesson examples to others in public that they can behave this way without repercussions. 

Which is more dangerous?  Those in "the underground" trying to connect with others on the fringe swaying them to their views?  Or those out in public, left unchecked, 'normalizing' this behavior?

I know which one is more dangerous and likely to end in violence, and that's worth considering.  But which is more dangerous to the larger society?

[Grant]

Similar but different points.  One relates to people who have proven themselves unfit for the type of society another wants to belong to or strives to create.  The other is about denying that one’s actions have disqualified them for participation in that same striven for society. 

OK.  I can follow along with this as it pertains to LAW.  Society has defined certain behavior as CRIMINAL behavior.  Individuals who take part in criminal behavior become CRIMINALS.  Criminals are temporarily or permanently disqualified from participation in society.  But in most cases, the point of the Criminal Justice system is rehabilitation. Bringing said criminals back into society.  I must note that judges and prosecutors typically do not yell and point fingers or take pictures during sentencing.  Yet we have very clear societal rules when it comes to deciding what is criminal.  We have law.  We have clear rules on what can become law and how a societal rule can become a law.  If you want to go ahead and make being a racist asshat a criminal offense, go ahead.  You may find it difficult since there are very important laws that dictate what cannot be considered criminal, and the majority of people do not believe that just being a racist asshat and saying racist asshat things should not be a criminal offense. 

There is also social pressure.  Social mores.  These have been around for a long time.  Don't have children outside of marriage.  Don't marry outside your race.  Don't engage in homosexual behavior.  Don't burn flags.  Don't commit adultery.  All of these have strong histories as social mores that were enforced at the social level.  But I'm surprised that liberals would be the ones who would want to bring back the enforcement of social mores to such degrees since they spent most of the 20th century fighting against them.  There was indeed a great deal of time spent getting people to accept people who did not think the way they did, stop ostracizing them, stop attempting to destroy them or punish them or cast them out of the community.  It seems that what you are talking about is taking a step back, not forwards. 

It is perfectly acceptable that one side should reject this dialogue

Acceptable in what way?  A side is perfectly capable of rejecting dialogue but once that is done there can be no change.  There can be only punishment and retribution.  Once you open up the possibility of punishment and retribution outside of law, there is no putting it back in.  The other side will resort to using the same weapons.  You've created a cycle of destruction and division that can only be completed through purification through war and violence and exile.  Is that who we are?  An entire country filled with people who want to get rid of certain other people?  Is that who you are?  Can't we all just get along? 

Framing it as a character flaw of that group is ridiculous.

What are we talking about?  Law?  Crime?  Or enforcement of social mores? 

Sorry.  I categorically reject attempting to punish people for disagreeing with me on social convention or for being asshats.  I reject attempting to punish people simply because they have different views of morality than I, unless they are breaking the law.  I'm not "Thought Batman".  I'm not a right-think vigilante.  I may completely agree that they are horrible people but trying to harm these people doesn't make me a good person.  Is it a character flaw to reject dialogue? Maybe not.  But it's futile.  It's a waste of time.  You're hurting the cause.  You're not making things better. 

I'm all for people's ability to say whatever they want, but scoff at the idea that "protection of speech" means protection from the consequences of one's speech.  (other than illegal consequences at least).  As a rule I’m opposed to moderation/censorship.  I think people should be free to say whatever they want, and face the consequences.

Who is going to give them those consequences?  You?  Can you bring justice?  Can a mob? 

If you want to build a better society, the first thing you will have to recognize is that nobody is perfect.  I'll say that again.  Nobody is perfect.  The vast majority of people on the planet have made mistakes, and have done things that can be construed as morally unacceptable or harmful to someone else at some point in time.  You need to think long and hard about where you draw the line.  We as the United States have made certain decisions about where to draw that line and called it law.  You can have beliefs and morals outside of law.  But enforcing these morals and beliefs through social punishment is rather..... insane..., if you have abandoned dialogue and persuasion.   It's self defeating. 

We may still be tribal creatures, but our tribes are far, far larger, and react more swiftly today than ever before.  That doesn't mean one cannot be rejected by the tribe.  If someone suffers social media exile/banishment, I think that shows we've come a long way in how we treat those who threaten tribal tranquility.

I personally find social ostracism or punishment to juvenile and to be a step backwards.  It's straight out of The Scarlet Letter.  Want to kick somebody out of your club?  Go ahead.  But don't pretend you're making things better.  You're simply creating another club. 

we often forget the other side of the coin.  Rampant unchecked empathy.  People suddenly unafraid to stand up for (at least digitally...) the underrepresented and victimized.  While societal norms do seem to be far more fluid than before, the trends seem largely towards more acceptance punctuated by over reaction by those who fear losing power/influence... or even easy fodder for their brand of humor.

LOL.  OK.  I don't think I can be accused of rampant unchecked empathy.  I've never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in digitally.  I'm having a hard time understanding people that are.  But fighting speech with speech is different then seeking repercussions for speech. 

But that conflict equals add revenue, so it gets reported.  People lament the culture war and the divisiveness, but honestly, as bleak a picture as we see painted every day, things seem to be moving in a positive direction here.  Sure those against this movement are freaking out and acting more boldly than ever before, and people notice.  I think that will just hasten their trivialization within society.  And I’ll be cheering that downfall.

Yeah.  This is social justice warfare theory.  It's not solving anything.  Making people afraid of the mob isn't making the world a better place.  It's how you got Trump.  I'm more of a MLK type activist. 

[D.W.]

Quote
It is perfectly acceptable that one side should reject this dialogue


Acceptable in what way?  A side is perfectly capable of rejecting dialogue but once that is done there can be no change.

This simply is not true.  Despite the increase of outlier stories put forward by the media, things ARE changing.  Trying to appease or give a larger megaphone to those outliers is not seeking to solve a problem. 

Once you open up the possibility of punishment and retribution outside of law, there is no putting it back in.  The other side will resort to using the same weapons.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about someone becoming a social outcast, not illegal retribution.  So if they 'respond in kind' it comes down to two groups attempting to exclude the others from society. 

I think we've already established that the toxic openly racist people are a minority.  So the only way that the 'retaliation' has teeth is if huge swaths of people defended those racists, probably for no other reason than because 'the liberals' are demonstrating social pressure / power.  EVEN THEN, it seems an empty threat/danger.

You've created a cycle of destruction and division that can only be completed through purification through war and violence and exile.  Is that who we are?  An entire country filled with people who want to get rid of certain other people?  Is that who you are?  Can't we all just get along?

That cycle is closer to complete than the current media landscape would have us know.  It is who we've been for too long already, but it's getting better.  Most of us CAN get along.  Those who cannot are in full blown panic mode, and their reactions shockingly (to them) are having the opposite effect.

Sorry.  I categorically reject attempting to punish people for disagreeing with me on social convention or for being asshats.

What do you mean by punish?  Or what do you think I mean by it?  Is depriving them of my company and speaking out to contest their views I feel are repugnant "punishing"?  Is petitioning a private company to cut ties with an individual saying things their customers find offensive "punishing"?  Or do you envision I meant sending angry mobs to intimidate/vandalize targets of my ire?  Do you "categorically reject" all of that?  Or just the last part?  Last two parts? 

I'm not "thought Batman" either, or a left think vigilante.  But if someone is openly bigoted or racist, then guess what, the larger culture left that person behind.  They are going to suffer socially by expressing those views publicly.  I am interested in seeing that continue/accelerate and preventing any backsliding.

Is it a character flaw to reject dialogue? Maybe not.  But it's futile.  It's a waste of time.  You're hurting the cause.  You're not making things better. 

Sometimes engaging can only serve to embolden those who are already defeated.  To trick others into believing that what has been accomplished is "just as bad".  At least I'm not making things worse.

One more time in case you have a different picture in your head.  The consequences I'm referring to are not extra-legal ones. 

I personally find social ostracism or punishment to juvenile and to be a step backwards.  It's straight out of The Scarlet Letter.  Want to kick somebody out of your club?  Go ahead.  But don't pretend you're making things better.  You're simply creating another club.

When one club is a large group of people trying to get along together, and the other is a tiny group who hates part of the larger group?  I beg to differ.  Cutting them out DOES make things better.

I've never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in digitally.

That's my point.  When a bunch of bullies are picking on someone because they are different in person, there is probably one or more in that crowd who doesn't agree or doesn't care, but are going along with the mob.  That's different digitally.  Not only is it easier to not be co-opted into a mob you don't agree with, but you are far more likely to express your real views than you might be when all your peers are doing something you don't condone/agree with.  That was what I was trying to convey. 

Not only that, but some people are a lot more likely to speak out online than they ever would be to confront their peers or strangers in public.  This is a significant change in our society.  While it's obscured by a lot of garbage that social media is doing to us, this is a powerful force of change.  Those being swept up by it and condemned by voices that would have historically remained silent or even joined in on out of peer pressure, are terrified!

[rightleft22]

The following is a total over generalization.

What bothers me about the right is a tendency to discount all of an issue when they find a flaw in 1 of 10 statements.  Or worse the reverse accepts an argument as valid based on a partial truth - truthful hyperbole.

What bothers me about the left if there need for moral superiority which makes them incapable of compassion, forgiveness or creating space that just maybe people can learn from life and evolve. Drives me nuts as the left likes to pretend how woke they are yet can’t see how badly they undermine what they say the stand for.
I mean if I was a murder, did my time and came out reformed with a good redemption story, its all good. But If 20 years ago I questioned the idea of gay marriage or some such I am forever flawed and condemned to hell forever. A hell, of course they don’t believe in

The right frustrates me and the left pisses me off.

Democracy relies on the ability to compromise. Something has happened to the way we communicate that has made the idea of compromise repugnant. In the age of social media and immediate feed back (which makes it easy to manipulate), there is little time to reflect on a subject. 
The window to be heard is so small. Eventually it’s s the above type arguments that rise to the top making it appear as if everyone one the left thinks the same way and everyone on the right thinks the same..  Any mediating voice is drowned out as every issue becomes all or nothing, you’re with me or against me.
This form of communication is very much a threat to Democracy.

[D.W.]

Something has happened to the way we communicate that has made the idea of compromise repugnant.

What has changed is we both target the most objectionable fringe opinions of the opposition. 

The thing that baffles me is the defense of those being painted with the large brush of that fringe.  That and the, seemingly wider by the day, belief that the fringe correctly represents the whole. 

When someone (like myself) says that I am against THIS GROUP, it's always interesting how swiftly people condemn that binary view, while ignoring the fact that they are ALSO against that same group.

[TheDrake]

So what's the alternative?

Racist: <racist statement>
The Left: Hey that's not cool. Okay, see you later.
Racist: heh.


It seems like some people on the right (not present company) would like to see the civil rights act repealed, hate crime legislation repealed, EEOC repealed, NAACP disbanded. And that somehow that would make things better.

[Grant]

This simply is not true.  Despite the increase of outlier stories put forward by the media, things ARE changing.  Trying to appease or give a larger megaphone to those outliers is not seeking to solve a problem. 

Nobody is advocating appeasing or giving a larger megaphone to racists, or people who gave money to Trump, or people who don't support homosexuality.  Some people here are stating that social ostracism and social repercussions are not methods of persuasion.  It's a method of coercion.  And it's not very effective.  You seem to believe it is effecting change, but any change that you can attribute to these methods are effected by fear. 

Just to be clear, I'm talking about someone becoming a social outcast, not illegal retribution.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about yelling "racist" at a racist, pointing fingers at him in public, taking photos of him, trying to get them fired, or any type of non-judicial social punishment. 

I think we've already established that the toxic openly racist people are a minority.  So the only way that the 'retaliation' has teeth is if huge swaths of people defended those racists, probably for no other reason than because 'the liberals' are demonstrating social pressure / power.

It's true.  Openly toxic racist people are a minority.  Another minority are people who think it's proper behavior to scream at people you believe are immoral and attempt to exact non-judicial social punishment on them, which includes ostracism.  So the group in the middle will support dialogue and combating speech with speech against racists and racism.  But they will not support screaming at immoral individuals and ostracizing them.  Since openly toxic racists are such a minority, what do the oppressed have to fear from them in the first place?  Because they are in the minority they are bereft of political power.  All they can do is march with tiki torches and shoot up Wal-Marts.  One is a crime, the other is not. 

EVEN THEN, it seems an empty threat/danger.

The more you push people into a corner, the more desperate they are going to be, and the more sympathy they are going to garner.  THEY will become the oppressed, not the people they hate.  That's just bad tactics. 

 

What do you mean by punish?  Or what do you think I mean by it?  Is depriving them of my company and speaking out to contest their views I feel are repugnant "punishing"?  Is petitioning a private company to cut ties with an individual saying things their customers find offensive "punishing"?

If it's not punishment, why are you doing it?  I perfectly support your right to associate and your right to speak out to contest their views. But I generally don't support methodology that I believe is counter-productive.  You may still have a right to these counter-productive actions, but I may support that right, but I don't see it as good conducive action.  You have to remember that if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.  If it's okay to petition a private company to cut ties with an individual who is racist, than it is in turn ok to petition a private company to cut ties with an individual who is unpatriotic, or immoral in some other way.  I just don't see this as good political action because it is counter-productive. 

But if someone is openly bigoted or racist, then guess what, the larger culture left that person behind.  They are going to suffer socially by expressing those views publicly.

Why?  There is no rule that states that an openly bigoted or racist or unpatriotic or communist person MUST suffer for expressing their views publicly.  You don't HAVE TO scream at an asshat.  They don't NEED to suffer.  The only suffering they should suffer is from their own thoughts.  You don't HAVE TO make them suffer more.  You DO have a choice. 

Sometimes engaging can only serve to embolden those who are already defeated.  To trick others into believing that what has been accomplished is "just as bad".

Engagement is the only way to achieve reconciliation.  Engagement is the only way to effect real change.  Everything else is war, wherein you attempt to destroy others or subjugate them.  Ostracism is the EXACT opposite of reconciliation and building a society. 

When one club is a large group of people trying to get along together, and the other is a tiny group who hates part of the larger group?  I beg to differ.  Cutting them out DOES make things better.

LOL.  How?  They're not going away.  Did you send them to the phantom zone?  Exiled to an island in the Aleutians?  They're still going to hate that part of the larger group.  They're still going to be saying hateful things or thinking hateful things.  Take away their job?  They still hate.  Probably more now.  The others in the group that you are hoping to intimidate?  They still hate.  Probably more now.  They're just much more silent. 

That's my point.  When a bunch of bullies are picking on someone because they are different in person, there is probably one or more in that crowd who doesn't agree or doesn't care, but are going along with the mob.  That's different digitally.  Not only is it easier to not be co-opted into a mob you don't agree with, but you are far more likely to express your real views than you might be when all your peers are doing something you don't condone/agree with.

OK.  I don't actually agree with any of this. But I'm not focused on digital bullying and bad behavior anyways.  I'm more focused on real life behavior and consequences.  I'm talking about real social ostracism, not online ostracism.  I'm talking about screaming at racists because someone really thinks it makes it better.