Same here. I feel like there is a lot of miscommunication and going in circles, none of which has become beneficial-simply argumentative.
'White genocide in space': Racist "fans" seething at racial diversity in Discovery...
- Thread starter Trajet
- Start date
- Status
This, this right here. Once people start saying they're going to hurt other people or tell other people to hurt people, then they should be dealt with.
Hate speech has a legal definition, being hateful doesn't.
Thats how it's supposed to work, but the US has a terrible track record of protecting minorities. Black people were freed from slavery, yet denied rights for over a century afterwards. Even now they aren't fully equal under the law in practice.
Or we could raise enough noise that they have to do something because enough public opinion has changed.
Others seem to be okay with it though.
Put simply, hate speech is speech that incites prejudice or violence. It has particular legal meanings around the world.
Hateful speech is not equivalent to hate speech.
By the way, you can tell that hate speech is a term with its own particular meaning apart from hateful speech, because "hateful speech" is grammatical whereas "hate speech" isn't, because "hate" is not an adjective, unlike "hateful" which is an adjective.
Hateful speech is not equivalent to hate speech.
By the way, you can tell that hate speech is a term with its own particular meaning apart from hateful speech, because "hateful speech" is grammatical whereas "hate speech" isn't, because "hate" is not an adjective, unlike "hateful" which is an adjective.
The slippery slope argument here is yours. "If we have hate crime, it will lead to simple opinions becoming criminal" is a slippery slope fallacy because the connections are not argued or evidenced. There is plenty of historical evidence for the position that hate speech leads to violence.
Last edited:
Do they try to force their beliefs on others? Vote for people who would restrict the rights of those people who want to get married?
Where there's one (belief of marriage only between a man and a woman), there's usually the other (forcing that belief on others, voting for people who would restrict the rights of homosexual couples).
The way I see it (and I'll admit I'm no expert), its this voting which is the major problem. Regardless of indivdual opinion, people who disagree with but are tolerant of same-sex marriage etc, will always vote for those who disagree but aren't tolerant, and then they get elected to a position where at the very least being vocal with hate(ful) speech becomes the norm and people follow their example, but will most likely enact laws which curb LGBT rights.
Even if those who disagree but are tolerant don't force their beliefs or act out in a way which is specifically harmful, it's still because of them (in large numbers) that the damage is done...
That was deep...
Explain what's wrong with what he said. If you don't speak out against an injustice you're allowing it to continue. Things would be a lot better off for a lot of people if the Christians who weren't bigots spoke up against those who were. Otherwise the bigots assume that everyone agrees with them and try to do more damage.
I know there is a fear of the so-called silent majorities. When a fundamentalist extremist perverts what the majority of the group they claim to be part of believes, a lot of us though not wanting to admit it feel a disappointment in the greater community or group if they do not all collectively show outrage. Obviously that is impossible. How can they? You might get community leaders speaking up but a worrying distrust lingers about that silent majority who actually are not the enemy. That is part of the fear and damage done. Yet is it fair to say in regards to the majority "it's still because of them (in large numbers) the damage is done"? I don't think it is.
Most of us rank and file citizens just have to walk the walk. If you see someone being abused I guess it's gut reaction. I've been stupid in my life and got in the way of other people's fights and I'm slight. Pure reaction nothing clever and nothing to change society. The best most of us can achieve is usually silent. People should get off their bums and vote. How many people don't? Too many. Of course voting is based on a myriad of priorities.. For my part for example, I don't care who gets married and to whom. And I only care that when I use a public loo it is clean and has plenty of toilet paper. Uni-sex toilets are not unusual. I don't want people scared and hurt. Bigots frighten all of us..
You do know the reason you have the privilege of just sitting on your ass, is because others have done the 'loud' and 'useless' work? Sufraggettes blowing themselves up, nations going to war with Nazi's, freedom rides, that sort of thing.
And you just compared the religious right to terrorists. 'Silently' is the exact opposite to how the US typically deals with those.
No.
No successful politician is going to climb up on a platform that lacks visible and measurable support. It's rather hard for your vote to implement change, if no politician is pushing for it.
Which is why you need to gather vocal supporters. You need to form a noticeable, standing, base.
That's nice.
Meanwhile, bathroom laws still exist because of conservative religious proponents.
It's almost like actual silent people achieve jack shit. They don't obstruct per se, they just leave an opening for opportunistic arseholes to fill in the silence with their so-called 'silent majority.'
And you just compared the religious right to terrorists. 'Silently' is the exact opposite to how the US typically deals with those.
No.
No successful politician is going to climb up on a platform that lacks visible and measurable support. It's rather hard for your vote to implement change, if no politician is pushing for it.
Which is why you need to gather vocal supporters. You need to form a noticeable, standing, base.
That's nice.
Meanwhile, bathroom laws still exist because of conservative religious proponents.
It's almost like actual silent people achieve jack shit. They don't obstruct per se, they just leave an opening for opportunistic arseholes to fill in the silence with their so-called 'silent majority.'
Last edited:
Silent but deadly....
It is since you could have stopped it.
If you don't want people to be scared or hurt then it is your duty as a human being to do everything possible to prevent it.
I didn't mean to specifically pass judgement by what I said (although I have to admit that I generally do), I was just trying to point out how things work, and the truth is that the damage is made worse (there will always be the minority doing the damage regardless) by the majority who vote in favour of it. These days, particularly in the UK and US, people seem to prioritise their own comfort (or at least what they believe to be for their own comfort) at the expense of the safety of societies most mistreated and/or vulnerable.
I took Discovery's diversity for granted.
I was readin Lovecraft's Horror at Red Hook. HPL was very backward on race. I begin to think--how can you do villains these days.
We say casting is important--but we do base things on looks. Like the ALIEN, uncanny valley.
Imagine the crew on Discovery fights some cult from Red Hook. You can make a diverse crew on Discovery noble--maybe the light flares. A diverse cult can be made to look furtive, maybe through other visual cues. But would those be seen objectionable. I wonder how a thing like that could be done.
I was readin Lovecraft's Horror at Red Hook. HPL was very backward on race. I begin to think--how can you do villains these days.
We say casting is important--but we do base things on looks. Like the ALIEN, uncanny valley.
Imagine the crew on Discovery fights some cult from Red Hook. You can make a diverse crew on Discovery noble--maybe the light flares. A diverse cult can be made to look furtive, maybe through other visual cues. But would those be seen objectionable. I wonder how a thing like that could be done.
This. Comfort is more priority, than consideration of the consequences long term. It's a matter of personal responsibility that is not always followed through upon.
Also, possibly the discomfort that comes from looking at the mistreated and vulnerable populations makes it easier to ignore. Again, personal comfort is much easier. Hash tags and memes, and the like.
Now, on the other side, castigating whole categories of people for inaction is not going to motivate change. Isn't that what Christians are often accused of guilting people to be good? So, it is helpful for problems to be pointed out, and ask for help, from all groups.
If a person is uncomfortable with seeing another group of people then there is something deeply wrong with them.
Actually it makes them easier to erase from society, which is their goal. If a group isn't visible, they can't fight for rights and they disappear entirely from society. Post WWI Germany was possibly more tolerant of LGBTQ people than modern America, that came to a horrifying end.
That is pointing out a problem and asking for help. You're allowing your religion to be taken over by bigots, racists and the worst kind of monster. They're hurting vulnerable groups and claiming it's in the name of religious liberty. But you think it's fine to sit back and let them do it, that's fine. It's your choice in the end and I won't stop you. But sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending your religion isn't being corrupted won't solve anything. They're just going to drag you down with them. Silence equals approval to the ones doing the damage.
Also since when are Christians accused of guilting people into being good? They're accused of guilting people into their religion.
- Status