That is a great idea, but no. He was living in another part of the country from them at the time of the initial attack. The article was written in that area.
Nahvi
joined 2 years ago
Once again, thank you for the well-reasoned comment.
I have to say, much of this sounds very similar to something I might have said while trying to convince someone that there is some nuance to the Christian Right. The rest of if though is still worth thinking over some more for sure. Especially the bit about how this space is a bit tailored towards leftist view points. Maybe I am expecting too much in a place where people should be able to throw an off the cuff "goddam repubtards" without being called on it.
Still, I think some of the comments really do push that boundary; including OC's immediate accusation of some generic Christian being the murder.
Your point seems to be that people should not generalise an opinion on a large group of people.
That is indeed my exact point.
But you fail to ask the question of when passivism becomes guilty by failing to act.
That is actually one of my main concerns with the direction lemmy is heading. At some point when the bias becomes extreme enough we need to start calling out those that are crossing the line. If it seems like I am not pointing enough at the extremes of the republican side, it is only because their voices are few and far-between on Lemmy. Typically when I find them, they are already buried in down-votes and comments. I usually a downvote to the pile, upvote a few other comments, and then move on.
Germany was held accountable for the atrocities of the holocaust. They moved on. They educate in schools in an attempt to prevent this from reoccurring.
In principle, I agree with this, but in practice it seems to be having questionable long-term results. The rise of the extreme right seems as prevalent there as it is in the US. Though some of that may just be overreporting because of the general interest in Germany when it comes to right-wing extremism.
What is happening in the US with republicans can only persist if people support them, and polling suggests there is support there.
I think this issue is a bit more complex than that. I think it has to do as much or more with people being forced to support the side they feel less negative towards even if they don't really agree with that side. Here is an interesting if imperfect analogy I read relating to it:
Since the main topic is apparently too hot of a take, I’ll take pineapple on a pizza for example (Perhaps I’m getting into even hotter waters). Free of external influence (i.e. memes), I think most people will eat it without much thought. Some might like it, some might not, and I doubt it’s all that controversial–likely less than anchovies. If you don’t like it, you just don’t have to eat it.
But if one extreme said we must ban pineapples from all pizzas, and the other end of the extreme said we must put pineapple on all pizzas, we have a very different scenario. I myself enjoy Hawaiian pizza and find pineapples to be a fine topping. But I certainly don’t want to eat only pineapple pizzas all the time. So, I’d look at both extremes and side with no pineapples ever. That seems better of the two options. I can no longer be a centrist because the idea of having only pineapple pizza seems horrible. But I don’t really eat whole pizzas by myself, I eat it with others. And if others are such great lovers of pineapple pizza, I’d be influenced to side with the other extreme of always having pineapple due to peers.
I want to highlight that both of these extremes are authoritarian. One forces you to eat pineapple. The other forces you to not eat pineapple. Neither are true libertarian choices. They are forced viewpoints one forces on the other. That’s what forces people to have such strong negative emotion towards it. No one wants to be forced into things. This is important and I’ll come back to this later.
Excerpt from https://lemmy.world/comment/3742406 from /u/[email protected]
Thank you for the clarification.
I have read that multiple times. I just think it is a shite theory.
I eventually need to put it in my own words, but /u/[email protected]'s post is pretty good for now: (emphasis added)
There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else
Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.
Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.
There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.
The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.
I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society
There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges
Agreed. I certainly appreciate the direct honesty.
Looks like they are both bigots from here.
Yeah, party affiliation is way more important than who a person is or how they live their life!
I can appreciate that train of thought.
A lot of agnostic and atheistic people have spent a lot of time considering their own moral and ethical values; I know I have. While my own version started with an ethics class I took while at a bible school, I still needed to spend plenty of time once I left that life considering what morals and ethical values I thought were relevant.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that an unbiased observer thought I was religious until they got to know me better.
You can be a wise, moral and ethical person without religion
I fully agree.
Edit: That in no way discounts the idea that there is a lot of wisdom in religion. Even if some of it is outdated.
That is not really what I was referring to Edit: when I said I doubt we are beyond the need for religion. There is a (debated) theory that religion was important in moving from tribalism towards modern civilization. Specifically, the belief that a god or gods would punish your neighbor if he was doing evil behind your back may have been a necessary concept in our development. Even in modern times, the idea that our fellow citizens may be doing evil without recourse is a serious consideration. It may be adding to our current societal stresses.
Of course, that could be all horse shit, but I am leaned slightly towards that opinion at present.
Expression of Religion is a choice. Belief in religion is often more fundamental to who a person is.
once they can get their own fucking house in order
This is the fundamental problem right here. There is no house. There are neighborhoods worth of houses. Some of them not even next to each other. Some of them share outdated morale codes. Some of them have moral codes you and I could both respect. They are no more in control of each other than we are of them.
It is one of the definite weaknesses of all the separate denominations. If there was only one Christian group, we could try to talk with the Pope and the other Patriarchs and potentially have them all heard the group in the same direction.
Just think of the Westboro Baptists, so shameful that even the KKK denounced them on their home page a few years back.
More strawmen, more name-calling.
Just find a mirror, then the conversation will be the same as the one in your head.