> Playing nice has its reward in the long term.

Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. I absolutely will not play nice.

So here's a perspective on the parent's statement and yours.

Being placed on a registry = bad. - Have you supported or opposed gun registration? - Did you support blocking purchase of guns based on your presence on a no fly list?

If your answer to either of the above two questions is yes, I'd advise you to strongly consider what drove you to that perspective?

If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news.

If your answer to those questions was no, then congratulations on logical consistency.

Now, in terms of defeating calls and/or support for such a registry to you think it would be better to dismiss the fears that people have and insult them...or to have a civil discussion with them on why it's a bad idea, the constitutional problems it creates, historical outcomes or how it's virtually unenforceable?

The above video makes the point that dismissing and insulting rather than playing nice and engaging is exactly the problem. You can be against the registry and still have a civil debate. Slinging insults and avoiding the discussion entirely is the problem.

One of my favorite quotes:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

Since we are going to do arguments by quotes..

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov

So, no, sorry, a registration by ownership ( gun/car/fuzzy pink socks ) isn't the same as a registration by Religion.

This really should be obvious, but for some reason, it isn't.

I really wish I had the answer to that...

You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination. If that is the case, how is the reason for being on that registry given of a difference of weight? There are also historical patterns for what happens following a weapons registry...and none of them are good.

Also, regarding the Asimov quote...I'd challenge you to think nothing is so black and white. If you believe one person is merely ignorant, that the summation of what they've experienced in their own life that created the way they see things is dismissable is worth less than your own...you may want to look a little deeper.

Even somebody cooking meth has a story and a reason that drove them to it. You might not like it. You might not find it justifiable...but it's that person's reality and if you're not willing to understand the perspective of a person you view as ignorant then you are feeding your own.

> Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination.

> You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination.

Where did your interlocutor claim that being on any registry is historically followed by extermination? You're broadening their position to introduce contradictions that don't exist in the original.

It's like claiming that someone who doesn't support one kind of tax because that kind of tax has a history of causing very serious problems and very little benefit must necessarily oppose all taxes. If you want to prove that they should, based on their stated position, oppose all taxes, you'll need to demonstrate that all taxes cause very similar balance of benefits and problems to the one they oppose.

Edited to clarify. Good catch.

Actually I don't see how you can say that registration of gun ownership isn't the same as registration by religion. For many second amendment supporters it seems to equate to the same thing.

The idea I have seen is that self-defense is a god given right, and fundamental to being a free persion. This seems to be held as much as a philosophical, religious position as anything.

Telling a person who has that belief and thinks of themselves as a good person who doesn't mean harm to others that they can't be trusted not to kill other people, is no different from saying the same thing about a Muslim.

What about Registration by Fairytale?

hence my point... I'm tempted to reply harshly but...

The first pattern was property ( as well as is used affects others ), the second pattern was a belief or similar ( others not affected ).

So, examples.

Car/Guns == Public Safety ( other people may be affected, socks was a joke, but you can argue that the buying of something, can be regulated by the seller as he wishes )

Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people... ( plus, some of these you can't change, and should have no bearing.. they are identifiers of people/culture/etc )

Violent Religious/Red Headed Person? We already have other methods/laws for this, it's called Laws against committing other crimes... The Red/Religion is superfluous...

I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.. again, the analogy should not be needed ( but it unfortunately is.. )

>> Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people

Yes, it was. These things do affect other people. Negatively? That's a subjective opinion, but all of these things are unique by case anyways. What do I mean? The fairytales of one person may result in some delusion that affects their family and relatives, and they abandon their social responsibilities to chase the white prince/queen/whatever. Also, one's religion has an affect on one's actions. If your religion says "kill the infidel", then complete adherence to such religion endangers others.

I'm not arguing that people should be registered, but the idea that ideology != affecting people is incorrect.

>> I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.

At least you can admit that. That's more than some people can say. +1

> If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news.

I completely understand why a Muslim registry sounds good to a lot of people. That doesn't make it a good idea.

(For what it's worth, the no-fly-list is an abomination, poorly thought out and poorly implemented.)

Many people oppose both the No Fly List and the registering of Muslims. It's not about which evil bastard in office did what. It's about drawing a line now, and getting the hell back to the safe part of the political spectrum, before there are human ashes rising from chimneys.

Remember what happened to the CTO at Mozilla who contributed to the campaign against gay marriage.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make here?

First, he was the CEO at the time of the controversy - a much more symbolically important leadership position than CTO. For many companies, their CEO is the face of the company, which makes any controversy much more damaging.

Second, he contributed money to a political campaign that was socially unacceptable to a large enough group of people that they made an enormous amount of noise about it. As a result, he stepped down (whether willingly or not behind the scenes, it was publically a willing resignation) because, in his words, "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." [1]

Isn't that the way the market is supposed to work? People boycotting Mozilla (i.e. "voting with their feet") led to the corporation responding to its consumers' desires.

What's the relation to a state registry based on religion, again?

Also, there is a difference between tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and tolerance of open attempts to strip others of rights. The political campaign he funded was very much the latter.

--

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...

Brendan Eich? Yeah, here's what happened to him: he's now the CEO of another corporation. Not exactly the stuff of martyrdom...

It's not like his career was ruined. He was simply the wrong person to lead Mozilla.

It's important to note that the "campaign against gay marriage" was not just about a future ban, but specifically about the annulment of marriages already registered in California. How would you feel about someone who tried to annul your marriage without ever having met you? To me, that explains why people felt so strongly about his actions.

Gun owners say the same thing--registration leads to confiscation. Somehow, their cries are ignored.

One, of course, might find a difference between hypothetical banning of something you own and a hypothetical banning of something you are.

While true, it may still be a reasonable concern if one is of the belief that what they own may offer protection for who they are.

Who on the political spectrum is proposing to deport or murder all gun-owners?

To my knowledge no one. However, there are people on the political spectrum who would like to curtail or eliminate gun ownership. If you are a gun owner who believes that firearms offer a means of protecting yourself and the government wishes to take away the tool of that protection, I could understand why that may be concerning.

I'm not voicing an opinion on this one way or the other, I was mearly stating that I could understand the concern. Perhaps I misunderstood the GP's comment.

One might, but that's only one framing.

The idea that a free person has the right to self-defense is based in something you are. For some people, banning the ownership of guns is an attack on who they are. This is true for some people who don't currently own guns as much as those who do.

Gun ownership isn't a religion. Although sometimes its devotees give that impression.

Gun ownership may not be a religion in itself, but the belief in the right to self defense, or to not be criminalized in advance, can certainly flow from religious beliefs.

The only powerful institution engaging the type of widespread dehumanization that gets people on registries right now is the mainstream media. And it's getting a free pass to do so.

I'd proiritize a little better imo.

It is also a stupid strategy.

60m people, many in counties that voted for Obama twice... And the left wants to call them all racists and bigots because they weren't as motivated by LGBT and gender issues compared to supporting free speech (fuck safe spaces), avoiding more neocon foreign policy (Syria, Yemen), and blocking free form globalization?

Good luck. There was once a time when democrats led the charge on these issues. WTF happened?

I voted against Trump because I am afraid of what he might do to the environment (like appointing a climate change denier to office) and to our civil liberties (like appointing anti choice justices).

There are legitimately bigoted things that came from Trump supports and arguably Trump himself.

I don't understand this rising hatred towards "safe spaces", but maybe I don't think of them like you do. To me, I see a safe space as something like a home, where someone can relax and be themselves. Every single person should have access to a "safe space".

If your idea of a "safe space" is something different please let me know.

Walk onto a college campus. This isn't about private property. This is about suppressing discussion because you disagree with it. That mentality is why identity politics is so bad. Instead of seeking out people that disagree with us, we're isolating ourselves both digitally and physically within our little tribes.

I'm pro-choice BTW, but it isn't a top issue compared to the others. Call me a bigot as much as you want, it won't change my vote.

>Instead of seeking out people that disagree with us, we're isolating ourselves both digitally and physically within our little tribes.

I completely agree that this is a huge issue, but many Trump supporters seem to fall right into this behavior as well, basically going "if it's not on Breitbart, it can't be true!". In fact, his whole campaign was engineered to convince people that everyone else is lying while only he tells it how it is (while framing his arguments with blatant lies left and right)

Your perception of Trump supporters is based on those you know personally? Where are you located?

If not, then have you considered that your perception might be influenced by mass media and your own echo chamber?

I live in Chicago and worked for the Progressives, so I feel pretty good about my lens. I also don't read any of that alt right garbage.

Edit: I would argue that the tribalism and unwillingness to listen is represented by small, but noisy, factions on both sides and that by and large people voted according to rational concerns. If we can purge those extremes from both our respective parties, we'd be better off and much happier.

I attended a private (nominally Christian) liberal arts college and I find that I do agree with you on the suppression of discussion that many people found disagreeable. That's a legitimate problem.

I was a member of a free thinkers group there and we were derided for being open atheists/antitheists on an "inclusive" campus. I think there should be places for open discussion that makes us uncomfortable especially on college campuses.

And while I do find demonizing people and shutting the door to conversation to be morally reprehensible, I find demonizing people and basing policy on such demonization to be worse.

I too hope that we can have conversations about controversial ideas (I hold many of them myself), but I don't think saying eliminating safe spaces is a way to accomplish that.

> Walk onto a college campus.

Ok, then what.

Head into a computer lab, and log on to HN.

Well, in your specific case, continue doing what you normally do and act surprised when the midterms come around and the left loses seats.

Cool how you think you know me.

How about in a general case then?

Your idea is just that - your idea.

Term safe space is being perverted by people who can't cope with feelings caused by reality of every day occasions - they're "triggered" for every thing they feel non happiness.

It's a direct result of being pampered from primary schools on with "everybody is a winner" trope. America is specially obsessed with happiness and if somehow someone is causing icky feelings, these people scream about "safe space" - it's what they've been let all these years anyway.

When a YALE student can't debate with a proper tone with the teacher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ZVEVufWFI

I heavily doubt your characterization of the average reasons people voted Trump. Only one candidate threatened journalists with "opening libel laws," where was the hand-wringing about "Free Speech" then? Where was the worry about neocon foreign policy when candidates endorsed torture, carpet bombing the middle east, killing the families of terrorists, and reimbursing ourselves with Iraq's oil after the invasion?

People mostly choose their candidate and make justifications after the fact. I do believe that the rhetoric of the left probably drove conservative voters away, but that has nothing to do with what "Free Speech" actually refers to and a lot more to do with cultural values, hating the liberal elite for being liberal more than being elite, and a vague sense of "feeling attacked."

Trump supports free speech? He promised to strengthen libel laws (pretty sure there aren't any such thing at the federal level now ...)

He said a lot of things freely, and a lot of them are interpreted by many as racist or otherwise categorized as bigotry.

I can see the viewpoint that supporting Trump is much more about supporting bigotry than it is about supporting free speech, based on his words and his promises. I have more trouble seeing the viewpoint of the inverse, at this point still.

>avoiding more neocon foreign policy (Syria, Yemen), and blocking free form globalization

Boy are you in for a shock when you see his shortlist for SoS.

Apparently so are you

They started it by dehumanizing me.

But good reasoned discussions will never work on most voters. Facts might make them sheepish for a while if confronted, but they'll soon retreat to news which assuages their confirmation bias. Only large-scale demonstrations and emotional reactions are going to work against that. Make these people feel like they're in the out group, for once.

No, large-scale demonstrations are just going to make "them" feel like they have to fight harder (for most values of "them").

For a while. But nonviolent protest does have a history of effectiveness in the long term.