Clear arguments from your core principles for why not allow something is nigh and day different from the chilling effects that blanket labeling has.
Yes, the problem is clearly very nasty, and yes it will inevitably have some marginal effects.
But the disease is ignorance, the cure is exercising discrimination AND providing the information to help ignorance. AND of course allow the debate of that information.
The debate can be as simple as the 60 piece twitter story about that Viking textile fragment with Allah that turns out to be not Allah. (Where the scholar pointed out that the dating is wrong, the person that claimed that the text is Allah is wrong because there was no space on the textile for that. End of story.)
And in case of the Holocaust, yes, there's probably a 0.000000001% chance that we're being bamboozled by the New World Order, but that's almost the same as end of story (because we have more pressing matters).
Like, I don't know if that was a carefully thought out zinger or an accidental numbnut of a line but bravo. Bravo.
However, you don't have a moral obligation to help a racist send their message. Otherwise, treat all people as people.
'Treat all people as people' is exactly the culture that allows these assholes to become POTUS. By not acknowledging the danger of some views you allow it to fester and, ironically, become a great threat to the safety of other humans/people.
Once you accept a moral system that justifies no longer treating human beings as people, you've allowed yourself a system that can justify anything. Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination.
That is a view to be fought, not descended to.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Sec...
Seems like those 'other' groups were generally defined by biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology, not biology, but the majority of examples I can think of that you're alluding to have to do with biology, no?
No. "Jewish" isn't biological, although there is some correlation, and America's red scare was soundly ideological.
I would think that's your 'red scare' unless you're talking about something else.
The "jewish" one - thinking specifically of ww2 - it definitely was more of a biological component, as "how much" you were jewish, and from what lineage, made a difference. "jewish" is both cultural and may have a racial/biological component (imu).
Quick question: does anyone defending the racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., have any other argument than "SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!"?
A grocery store is a private entity. Outside of banning someone for being a protected class, they are free to refuse service to anyone. Even if someone is a protected class, they still can be banned for valid reasons (i:e; stealing, threats, etc). Being a racist is not a protected class. Nor should it be. The grocery store has the right not to do business with them.
Facebook and Google are private entities. They can refuse service for any reason (with some restrictions). They have no ethical obligation to give service to everyone. No one has any obligation to use Facebook or Google's services either.
TL;DR: Outside of a few legal requirements, no one has any obligations to associate with anyone.
Sure, why not? Racists want to deny people their rights; why shouldn't people get the equal opportunity to deny racists their rights?
> Racists are humans too.
Racists see other humans as lesser. I think that automatically disqualifies them from being considered human.
Agree with me, disagree with me, don't try to poke in my head.
Actually I can't think of a worse form of bigotry than attributing motivations for behavior of others.
Not an ounce of racism motivates it. I absolutely despise the BNP and the alt-right.
You thinking it's obvious I'm a racist shows how close-minded people on both sides of the debate can be.
Opposition to refugees (modest numbers, carefully vetted since decades, coming from real crisis situations) is at least motivated by dimwitted xenophobia. Opposition to mass immigration would be a different category.
Does this include foreign spouses? Students?
P.s. discussion isn't bad if conducted in good faith and not a vehicle for propaganda. It's the lies and hate-mongering in the ads that are bad.
I have tried to pick my verbiage carefully. Members of a group, for better or worse, are representative of that group but not in totality. Thus, generic statements are often not easy to make and leads me to point this out in response to your statement.
Also, I'm part black, if you're curious. I'm definitely not in the group most would expect to point this out. My white genes are a definite minority. ;-)
At any rate, some people who claim to be involved in BLM have made very, very racist statements that absolutely are discriminatory. Some have even gone so far as to suggest acts of violence. A search of 'twitter bans BLM member' should turn up some results, if you want citations.