https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45637040

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/norways_hidden_s...

People who have experienced trauma from the actions of people can hate other people who they think are doing the same sort of actions. I guess it could be argued that you hate the response you have to a person's actions, and thus hate that thing that is a part of you. But I don't buy or agree with this. It focuses too much on the person experiencing the emotion and not enough on the actions of others that prompt the emotion.

Funny coincidence that some of the most outspoken ANTI-LGBT people get caught doing the very things they claim to despise.

Protesting that one's cause is noble would be missing the point of the quote entirely. Everybody who has ever made lists thought they were doing it for a worthy cause.

A gay person isn't a hypocrite for being gay, a gay person condemning and harming other gay people is a hypocrite.

Again missing the point. It isn't a challenge to defend oneself, it's an invitation to reflect. Less talking, more thinking.

They are facing the consequences of purposefully breaking the social contract by harming LGBT people.

That's not what the list says.

After all, if they are being bullied because they are gay, all gay people should be listed on there.

> After all, if they are being bullied because they are gay, all gay people should be listed on there.

I don't know what you mean. That's not a gotcha.

So it’s not because they are gay, it’s their behaviour.

I am glad we finally agreed though I am sad we had to spend as many steps to reach this conclusion.

These lists aren't about homosexuality (or communism or adulterers or whatever), it's about attacking ideological and political opposition. The list makers never include "transgressions" of people aligned with them on their lists. If they can bully and intimidate their opponents about their sexuality they'll do that, if not they'll find something else. That's how these things work.

So I refer you back to Nietzsche.

There's no ideology involved, only breaking the social contract and hurting others.

I'd refer you to Scanlon.

Listing the actions of individuals has no inherent morality. The morality of the actions is decided by the broader society.

You keep painting them as victims when the list is only outlining their actions. If you have done no harm, you have nothing to fear.

As far as I am concerned, you are just another hypocrite, no different to the people in the list and this conversation is not worth it.

Again, read up on contractualism.

You can't remove all the context from an action and claim the general case and the specific case are identical. That's like saying "Punching is just swinging my arm; you can't arrest me for swinging my arm!"

This sounds nice and pithy, but it's trivial to debunk. Beheading someone is not part of myself, but it most certainly disturbs me. And I certainly wouldn't be hating something in myself by hating someone who perpetrated such a grisly crime.