[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.2942

File: 1570064744956.jpg (7.22 KB, 190x186, 95:93, pinky.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/valley-girl-brain/201909/what-makes-people-so-gullible?utm_source=pocket-newtab

If people believe alt-right talking points or Nazi rhetoric, I wonder what other consequences this is having on their day-to-day lives.  Substantive examples are a plus for this thread.

 No.2956

I have noticed that a lot of people who are far-right politically are also skeptical of climate change, even though those two things aren't really related. And I've often wondered why.

 No.2959

File: 1570066926846.png (191.86 KB, 528x596, 132:149, medium.png) ImgOps Google

>>2956

The correlation can be found perhaps in the need for climate change to be false to support their narrative?

Disregarding things you do not wish to be true is not the same thing as skepticism.

Or is it.

 No.2965

If people believe socialist talking points or Communist rhetoric, I wonder what other consequences this is having on their day-to-day lives.

 No.2967

>>2959
I agree, I used "skeptical" to be polite. But the science is pretty clear on the topic. I'm just curious as to why there's a correlation there. Climate change isn't a political issue, but people on the right seem to deny it's existence more.

 No.3030

>>2967
>Climate change isn't a political issue
But what to do about climate change is a political issue.

 No.3047

>>3030
Granted. But very far right people often deny that climate change even exists.

 No.3049

>>2942
It's not just right wing extremists. There's plenty of left wing nutters who believe things that simply aren't true.
Whether this comes from antifa, assuming everyone is a secret Nazi, or more general Twitter types being convinced false quotes or out of context lines are the "truth", whereas evidence of said lines and quotes are "fabricated" or "walking back".

Simply put, anyone who only sticks to a bubble runs the risk of becoming indoctrinated into that particular groupthink. I wouldn't even say it's exclusive to extremists.
It's just that extremists tend to interact less with others, due to how quickly they become unpleasant.

 No.3068

>>2942

The nature of extremism is that one gives up their ability to think about and consider whether what they're hearing is accurate.

The more extreme one becomes, the more they must necessarily lose their ability to think.

So how do people become extremists?

1. They are raised extremist. In this case, someone might be be simultaneously intelligent and extremist - harboring secret doubts but going along with it anyway - and they just need to be exposed to someone who can clarify their doubts for them before they are cured. Other people raised extremist, however, will have no secret doubts and will be more difficult to persuade. A "manipulator" is someone who is raised extremist, intelligent enough to recognize it's wrong, intelligent enough to recognize that other people around them don't recognize this fact, but they continue anyway.

2. They are convinced. In this case, take someone of any level of intelligence. In order for someone to become a sincere extremist, two things must take place: 1) their ability to reason must become degraded (while simultaneously, if point #2 is met, their extremist views increase), and 2) they must not be aware of this degradation in their intelligence, not think it's a big deal, or otherwise ignore it. So take someone of average intelligence who watches standard American news. If the news were to, unbeknownst to the victim, gradually erode their ability to reason through sensationalist, emotional, contradictory, repetitive, and increasingly violent news stories and images, if that person is not aware of the effect of the news on their psyche, then that person will tend towards extremist views. If a person regularly consumes political memes claiming their preferred political party, and that person accepts those memes as truth, then their ability to reason will degrade.

3. There is some advantage for them. In this case, take an intelligent person. This person sees a lot of sincere extremists around him, and he thinks he can exploit them for some kind of personal gain. So he joins their cause and helps lead the way. The sincere extremist, having lost much of his ability to reason by nature of becoming an extremist, will be unable to tell the difference between a sincere extremist and a sufficiently astute insincere one.

So, why are extremists so gullible? It's the nature of extremism. Extremism and gullibility go hand-in-hand. To take an extremist point of view, one must not be very smart. And not being very smart, is a good sign that you will adopt an extremist point of view.

As a protection against for dumb people however - if they are a part of a supportive community, then they will likely side with said supportive community, thinking that extremism is bad, assuming the community takes care of their emotional needs.

But isolated dumb people are at risk of becoming extremist.

 No.3202

I forget where I heard this explanation, but humans tend to want to categorize events into a narrative.

I think it's not so much that extremists in particular are gullible, but everyone is susceptible to lies that fit into a narrative they can accept.  It's the principle on which common myths thrive.

So extremists are gullible because they believe in an extreme narrative.  Tell them something that validates the extreme position they have taken, and they will be eager to accept it.  Any information that doesn't fit into the narrative they believe in, they will search for an explanation, regardless of validity, that supports what they believe.

I think this is why all sorts of conspiracy theories catch on.  They play to the distrust of authority, especially of specific people or authorities.  If the breach of trust seems legitimate, then lies that support that mistrust fly by with far less challenge

 No.3203

>>2942
You wish for examples of pitches involving generic statements coated in flattery that appeal to those whose consistent misfortune make them less trusting of their own judgement?

Well, my roommate feel for check-fraud by a supposed online lover and did MLM, although it was probably never going to be profitable.  You know, it was a hope.

Payday loan ads probably fit.  There might be legitimate uses, as the interest on a payday loan might be less than, say, eviction related costs, but the ads show people, like, getting groceries early or something.  Nobody who trusted their own judgement could think that wise.

>>2956
Climate change has a liberal feel.  Why?  Hmm...  Probably more solutions have to do with government than private enterprise.  Or, it's hard to think of how preventing climate change will increase profits.  To think the right is anti-science, which was my first idea, is too simple.  They don't seem anti-big government when properly aligned with goals such as defense.  Of course, each party is a mixed bag.

 No.3207

I would think it's more the other way around.  Extremists become that way because they are gullible.

As for why people are gullible, I think there's a lot of reasons.  Poverty and hardship being the most likely culprit.  When you're stuck in a rut and nothing seems to get you out of it, you're more likely to latch on to extreme or dangerous promises that people try to throw you as an out.

 No.3212

>>3203
My theory as to why is because big companies with ties to the Republican party have a vested interest in suppressing solutions to climate change, because most would cut into their profits. So the Republican party has monetary gain in it. So they use the same tactics they use for other actually political issues to convince their constituents that climate change is not a big problem, or even that it does not exists. When thrown in with other actually political issues, those people conflate it to be one.

 No.3225

>>2956

Cause the position on climate change is a social norm within the group, it's not a matter of consistent political ideology, but rather a matter of social psychology and identity signaling

 No.3227

Here's a substantive example for you.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7545477/Trump-fan-beaten-wearing-MAGA-hat-blames-Manhattan-art-pop-getting-attackers-drunk.html

Funny how people are always taking about the alt-right boogeyman when left-wing extremists seem to do this kind of stuff all the time.

 No.3228

>>3227
Excellent example of cherry picking! You can create any narrative you want that way.

 No.3229

>>3225
But why does climate change denial seem to be more common with people on the right than on the left, when it is not inherently a political issue?

>>3228
It's what they do.

 No.3230

>>3228
You mean kind of like how OP was doing, only ever referencing the alt right and Nazis while people literally try to firebomb ICE detention centers because they think they're "concentration camps"?

 No.3231

>>3230
They are taking children away from their parents and keeping them there indefinitely with no plans to return them to their families. Maybe they aren't "concentration camps" by whatever strict definition you want to use, but you can't say it's a morally sound thing to be doing.

But I would think the fire would harm the children inside, probably not a well thought-out plan.

 No.3232

>>3230
>>3231
Also, the whole "violence of the left" narrative is just cherry-picking a handful of extremists wackos to play "whataboutism" to smear the other side in it's entirety and to distract from the fact that the right is the side with the literal Nazis on it.

 No.3233

>>3231
>They are taking children away from their parents and keeping them there indefinitely with no plans to return them to their families.
Taking children away while the parents are processed is perfectly rationale.
Assuming they're actually the parents, and the children aren't legal citizens, as I understand it they're usually sent back along with those parents.
I would not call this immoral by any metric.

>>3232
>Also, the whole "violence of the left" narrative is just cherry-picking a handful of extremists to play "whataboutism" to distract from the fact that the right is the side with the literal Nazis on it.
Bullshit.
Absolute bullshit.
If anything, the pointing to nazis is a massive "whataboutism cherry picking" given they're a microscopic fucking faction, compared to the far left's racial segregationists going absolutely nuts, not to mention the communists, and the anarchists who're actively attacking people in the streets.
Saying it's "one side" is just ignorant, plain and simple.

But, like the OP said, extremists are incredibly gullible...

 No.3234

>>3233
> as I understand it they're usually sent back along with those parents.

There's still over 2000 kids in custody.  And the government has no plan to reunite them with their families. (https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/family-separation)(https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-government-has-no-plan-for-reuniting-the-immigrant-families-it-is-tearing-apart)

The rest of that is just rhetoric from the right. Mentioning "communists" is ridiculous. Communism isn't a viable threat to the biggest capitalist nation in the world, and any "communists" aren't going to do any more damage than the Nazis literally marching in the streets.

Like it or not, Nazis and racists have aligned themselves with the right because they have the same goals. You shouldn't make excuses for those kinds of people if your views don't align with theirs. Is this Noonim?

 No.3235

>>3234
>"According to the government’s status report to the court on Oct. 15, there were 2,654 children initially determined to have been possibly separated from their parents. Of that number, 2,363 have been discharged from ORR custody, and the government says that 46 turned out not to have been accompanied by a parent when they crossed the border.   Another 125 children have made the difficult decision — in consultation with their parents, who have already been deported — to remain separated in order to stay in the country and pursue asylum. These 125 are thus not seeking reunification with their parents at this time. Their main pathway to release at this point is to live with other family or sponsors here in the U.S."
Saying "there's still over 2000 kids in custody with no plans to reunite them" seems a little disingenuous to me.
Unless you were referring to something else.

>Mentioning "communists" is ridiculous. Communism isn't a viable threat to the biggest capitalist nation in the world, and any "communists" aren't going to do any more damage than the Nazis literally marching in the streets.
Then why the fuck do you guys bring up the Nazis?
Why does the OP?
If you're going to whine about "right wing rhetoric" because I have the audacity to point out something that is in the same line as the OP of this thread, surely that makes you rather hypocritical, doesn't it?

Not that I necessarily agree, given that communists can be quite open about it and even end up in office. Certainly there doesn't seem to be a problem calling yourself a 'socialist'.

>Like it or not, Nazis and racists have aligned themselves with the right because they have the same goals.
And like it or not, Communists and insane racial identitarian collectivists've also aligned themselves with the left because they have the same goals.
This is not an argument.

>You shouldn't make excuses for those kinds of people if your views don't align with theirs.
I'm fucking not?
That was never something I did. You've completely missed the point.

>. Is this Noonim?
Ah, I guess this is Manley, then?
Explains why you completely miss the point and insist I'm arguing something I never fucking said.
God forbid you ever actually read someone else's post. Or, as it looks given the link you cited, absolutely anything for that matter.

I guess I should be fair, though, since you evidently didn't read something that seemed to politically align with you. It's not for dishonesty, I guess. It's just something you do, probably unintentionally.

 No.3237


 No.3238

>>3237
I'm not saying leftists do no harm and have no extremists. My point in making that statement is that your shit stinks as much as ours, so don't pretend it doesn't.

How about this, how long have you spent searching the internet for information about alt right crimes and intimidation of the left? Unless you can honestly say you've given it just as much research as you have for left extremism, then you know why I'm calling you a cherry picker.

 No.3239

File: 1570490919833.png (36.25 KB, 1401x267, 467:89, noonimwontlisten1.png) ImgOps Google

>>3235
If this is Noonim, you've already established you're not going to listen to any arguments because you're written me off as a bad person. Something I've never said about you. So there's no point in trying to discuss it any further with you.

 No.3240

>>3239
> you've already established you're not going to listen to any arguments because you're written me off as a bad person.
The screenshot you posted doesn't support this assertion.

 No.3241

>>3240
You can't tell because of the screen names, but it was directed at me.

 No.3242

>>3241
I know that it was directed at you; the screenshot even has the "(You)" indicator.  It still doesn't support your assertion.

 No.3243

>>3242
In what way? It's clear he's going on a tirade about how terrible he thinks I am, probably breaking several rules in the process.

 No.3244

>>3243
That doesn't establish that "[he] [is] not going to listen to any [of your] arguments".

 No.3245

>>3244
I disagree. That can be inferred, not only by said tirade, but the past actions informed by it.

 No.3247

>>3239
> written me off as a bad person
Also, I do not think this is entirely accurate.  Noonim clearly believes that you exhibit some bad behavior.  But I don't think he believes that you are incorrigibly a bad person.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he offered to help you become a better person if you indicated you have a sincere desire to improve your behavior and arguing and asked for his help in doing so.

>>3245
>That can be inferred, not only by said tirade
How?

>but the past actions informed by it.
Please elaborate on these actions that were informed by the tirade.

 No.3248

>>3247
Past actions of being belligerent when I attempt to debate him, and disregarding evidence that I present.

Also, I don't need his help. Because I feel the same way about him in many instances (although not so far as to actively insult him as he has done me).

We disagree on fundamental moral issues, so of course we are going to see each other as "bad". I don't support the things he supports, and I think supporting them is vile. And I assume, he feels the same way. There is no ability to meet in the middle here, because I'm not going to suddenly think that putting kids in cages is OK and he's not going suddenly think that, I dunno, being anti-immigration isn't the right way to be.

 No.3250

File: 1570494434235.jpg (38.79 KB, 1000x578, 500:289, solution_aversion_1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3225
>Cause the position on climate change is a social norm within the group, it's not a matter of consistent political ideology, but rather a matter of social psychology and identity signaling
Yes, that's a good point.  I remember reading an essay a few years ago on "crony beliefs":
https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/

I think there is also another factor at play: that Republicans dislike the solutions that are proposed to mitigate climate change.  From https://www.wired.com/2014/11/solutions-shape-factual-belief/ :

>In the next of their experiments, Kay and Campbell asked a different group of 121 adults to read one of two passages describing possible responses to climate change: one a free-market approach that emphasized the economic boon of green technologies, the other a regulatory proscription of energy cuts.
>
>Democrats were slightly less likely to accept climate change after reading about the free-market solution. Among Republicans, however, the aversion was much more pronounced: whereas after reading about regulations just 22 percent said Earth’s temperatures would rise by at least 3 degrees, that number leaped to 55 percent after reading about free markets.
>
>The findings support the idea “that Republicans’ skepticism toward climate change science is linked to beliefs about the policy solutions,” wrote Kay and Campbell. But conservatives don’t have a monopoly on solution aversion. In their next experiment, the researchers changed topics, to gun control and crime. When test participants who favored tight gun control laws, a politically liberal stance, read that expanded gun access reduced violent home invasions, they suddenly became less likely to think invasions were a widespread problem.

 No.3257

>>3239
That's literally the opposite of what I did there.
It was specifically a counter to the idea that we can assume people are evil.
I do not assume you are a 'bad person'. I argued the opposite in that very post you link.

 No.3260

>>3243
I'm going off on a tirade about what I believe about you, and how that specifically, and quite explicitly, doesn't make you a bad person.

You've completely misrepresented it. I even say that in the very fucking post you cite.
>"I cannot magically see into your skull, however, and use these beliefs as justification to declare you as evil"

You're citing evidence that proves the very OPPOSITE of what you're claiming here.

 No.3261

>>3248
>(although not so far as to actively insult him as he has done me).
Bullshit. See >>>/canterlot/2658 for plenty of direct references. And since you were ready to use the staff to prove your claims last time it was in your favor... The fact you got banned for the complaints in that thread.  
But, alright, let's leave that aside;
At least I do not misrepresent your arguments to claim you're saying something you are specifically, explicitly, and proven to be arguing against.

> I'm not going to suddenly think that putting kids in cages is OK and he's not going suddenly think that, I dunno, being anti-immigration isn't the right way to be.
I wouldn't demand that you do.
What I would ask is that you do not assume people who do support such things are evil.

Literally the entire fucking point of the picture you posted >>3239 that you apparently ignored.
Word for word, I said it explicitly there;
>"I cannot magically see into your skull, however, and use these beliefs as justification to declare you as evil. I certainly can't use it as justification to say others should never associate with you. To say others should never be a friend of yours, or ever have any romantic relations with you".
You know this is why we end up in fights, too, right?
I'm convinced you and I don't actually disagree on all that much.
It's just a matter of you not ever actually listening to what I say. You directly cut out bits of information you don't like.
It might not be intentional, given that you still cite these things, and expect others to believe it as well. Much as you did in >>3234 with the very link you provided. 2000 kids are not sitting without plans to reunite them to their families, at least not based off of what your link said.
>"According to the government’s status report to the court on Oct. 15, there were 2,654 children initially determined to have been possibly separated from their parents. Of that number, 2,363 have been discharged from ORR custody, and the government says that 46 turned out not to have been accompanied by a parent when they crossed the border.   Another 125 children have made the difficult decision — in consultation with their parents, who have already been deported — to remain separated in order to stay in the country and pursue asylum. These 125 are thus not seeking reunification with their parents at this time. Their main pathway to release at this point is to live with other family or sponsors here in the U.S."

 No.3262

>>3238
>I'm not saying leftists do no harm and have no extremists. My point in making that statement is that your shit stinks as much as ours, so don't pretend it doesn't.
I don't think he was. This is just your assumption of his intention.

 No.3265

>>3262
I have a feeling that Witty Lizard isn't the same person as Happy Otter.

 No.3267

>>3265
Fair enough. It's the same complaint, though, for assuming what other people're arguing.
I had said similar primarily because OP decided to only mention the right when talking about extremists, without seeming to consider the left. Unless you consider nazis left, anyway.

Especially given the guy posted >>3228
It's not cherry picking to point out there's plenty of bad people on all sides of the isle. The only difference I see is that one group doesn't like to condemn them.

 No.3268

>>3257
>>3260
>>3261
It doesn't matter how many times you try and say otherwise, going off and calling someone an asshole and a racist who lacks empathy implicitly implies you think they are a bad person.

 No.3269

>>3268
The thing is I really don't.
I don't think anyone save people who are very open about why they do something are evil.
Maybe it's a silly thing, but, I don't like calling people evil without them telling me why they did it.
If that reason is "I just felt like it", or "I wanted to hurt people", then that's one thing. But, I don't know why you are the way that you are.
It's entirely possible you're not meaning to do these things.

Maybe it's a silly thing, but, I try not to hate anyone, or call them evil. So I don't hate you or think you're evil. That was the whole point of that post.

 No.3270

>>3269
You chose a particularly poor way to illustrate that. And I'm not sure I believe it. In either case, what I said in >>3248 is still true.

>>We disagree on fundamental moral issues, so of course we are going to see each other as "bad". I don't support the things he supports, and I think supporting them is vile. And I assume, he feels the same way. There is no ability to meet in the middle here, because I'm not going to suddenly think that putting kids in cages is OK and he's not going suddenly think that, I dunno, being anti-immigration isn't the right way to be.

So i see no reason for us to keep going in circles when you're never going to listen to my side of things. I just honestly wish you would consider the facts of things. If you don't agree with Nazis, but constantly find yourself on the same side as them, then maybe it's time to rethink your position. Just a thought.

 No.3271

>>3270
>We disagree on fundamental moral issues, so of course we are going to see each other as "bad".
I disagree.  You can disagree on fundamental moral issues without seeing the other person as "bad".

 No.3273

>>3248
>disregarding evidence that I present.
Also I'm not sure I agree with that.  I think Noonim mostly does consider your evidence, even if he disagrees with you about the value of that evidence.

 No.3274

>>3270
>If you don't agree with Nazis, but constantly find yourself on the same side as them, then maybe it's time to rethink your position.
Why?  Why would I rethink my position on vivisection or veganism based on what the Nazis think about those subjects?

 No.3275

File: 1570501629538.png (371.66 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>3270
It was, in truth, mainly out of annoyance at I believe it was Zecora, to be quite honest.
Though it did serve well to explain why I do not think it is okay for you to call racists who haven't actually harmed anyone 'evil' because you assume their intentions.

>We disagree on fundamental moral issues, so of course we are going to see each other as "bad". I don't support the things he supports, and I think supporting them is vile. And I assume, he feels the same way. There is no ability to meet in the middle here, because I'm not going to suddenly think that putting kids in cages is OK and he's not going suddenly think that, I dunno, being anti-immigration isn't the right way to be.
I don't think we actually do. If anything, I think you haven't properly considered your moral values. Was the way I felt after you explained why racists're evil, anyway.
Though of course, I still don't think you're "bad".
I do not think supporting things I do not support is "vile". Well, maybe aside from actively violating basic human rights. But, you can do that for sensible reasons enough that I'd respect the argument presented. I wouldn't immediately dismiss it as "vile" necessarily, without working through the rationale.
I don't think that putting children in cages was okay. I mean, this shouldn't be shocking, given that I don't support Obama. I think that temporarily holding children while you deal with the potential assylum, parental concerns, and other such things, is reasonable, however. I figure a few getting hold for a bit of length is an unfortunate side effect of having a lot of immigrants trying to bring their children over, honestly. It's sad, but, it is what it is.
All in all, I think you and I are closer in agreement than you'd think.

>So i see no reason for us to keep going in circles when you're never going to listen to my side of things.
I understand the feeling. I've got the same concern. It's why I would like to chat sometime, elsewhere. In a more personable environment. SOmewhere where it is less to do with actual arguments, and more to do with discussions and understanding.
I understand, though, that you don't trust me enough to do that. It's unfortunate, but, like I said a moment ago, it is what it is.

>. If you don't agree with Nazis, but constantly find yourself on the same side as them, then maybe it's time to rethink your position. Just a thought.
The thing is I'm not.
That's the problem.
People assume I am.
They're usually completely off base, and just don't seem to listen to my arguments.

 No.3276

>>3274
Because you need to consider why Nazis feel the way they do about something and whether or not it is or could be linked to their views on white supremacy or some other negative aspect of their ideology.

>>3271
I really don't see how. If I think kicking puppies is bad, I see people who kick puppies as a bad person. The only way not to is to not think the act of kicking puppies is bad, or to find out that person was forced to kick a puppy against their will.

 No.3277

>>3271
This, exactly.
Being "bad" in terms of morality [I tend to just use "evil" but it's the same thing] is more of a question of intention, to me.
An action can be bad. A belief can even be bad. A person, though, that depends on intention.

I'm of the stance that, for example, it's bad to violate people's rights.
I do not think that the people who are in favor of such things are bad people.
More likely, they're severely misinformed, misguided, or just hold different standards for morality than I do .

 No.3278

>>3275
As I've told you before, annoyance does not excuse your actions. I am chronically annoyed with you, but I've never insulted you in that manner.

> It's why I would like to chat sometime, elsewhere. In a more personable environment.

I have not completely thrown out the idea, but I am hesitant. We would need a neutral 3rd party to mediate.

 No.3279

>>3276
>Because you need to consider why Nazis feel the way they do about something and whether or not it is or could be linked to their views on white supremacy or some other negative aspect of their ideology
If I hold a belief, it's going to be a belief I hold regardless of who is against it or who is for it.
Some people are going to be in favor of something for completely different reasons than I am.

For example; The nazis are in favor of free speech at the moment, as I understand it. You know what would change that?
Them being in power.
I'm pretty sure the Nazis were not renowned for their free speech stance, after all.
So, their reasons for being in favor of free speech are completely irrelevant to me. The reasons I oppose censorship are still the same.

 No.3280

>>3279
>If I hold a belief, it's going to be a belief I hold regardless of who is against it or who is for it.

That does a disservice to yourself. I used to hold anti-feminist views, until I noticed that white nationalists ALSO held those views. So it made me take a step back and really examine my beliefs. And I realized that feminism or women weren't the thing I had issue with at all. In fact, feminism was on the same side as me on many issues that I had just been too stubborn to notice before. Self-reflection cannot happen if you stubbornly ignore who else holds the same views and deny a connection.

 No.3281

>>3276
Please explain how anti-vivisection beliefs can be linked to white supremacy or other negative aspects of Nazi ideology.

 No.3282

>>3281
In this case, they can't. But that is not every case. You can't cherry-pick one example to say that nothing is ever linked.

 No.3283

>>3278
I would not agree.
You've insulted me plenty of times before.

But you've still missed the point. The reason I said what I said wasn't because I think you're a dick or something. It's mainly because, A, I do not believe it is acceptable to judge someone as evil because of a belief I hold about them, and B, it was bait for Zecora given the stance they had taken on your post to Mint.

Of course, to quote you; "That wasn't an insult. It was my honest opinion about his behavior".
>>>/canterlot/4172

>I have not completely thrown out the idea, but I am hesitant. We would need a neutral 3rd party to mediate.
I'm quite fine with that. In fact, I'd prefer it.

Also, I've been told you aren't really comfortable with voice? If so, we can do it over text, if that's preferred. I mainly wanted voice because I figured it would be harder for you to miss what I had said.

 No.3284

>>3280
So, because Nazis are in favor of free speech, you'd be against free speech?

 No.3285

>>3283
>You've insulted me plenty of times before.

I've "insulted" you by disagreeing with you and "misrepresenting" you (something I still attested I've never done intentionally), but I've never called you a racist with no empathy. I don't think you're a racist. I think you hold some racist views, and are too stubborn to admit it, but we went over why I don't think holding racist views and being a racist are the same thing. I've also never said you lack empathy or that you're "an asshole", especially since that last one violates the rules.

As for mint, it actually wasn't my honest opinion about him. My honest opinions about him are far, far worse. I felt what I said was holding back, but apparently it was still too far. So I won't be talking about him on the site anymore. I think it's easy for people to guess how I'd feel about a white supremacist, but if anyone's curious, I'll tell them in private so I can actually be honest.

I'm fine with voice. I'd prefer it, in fact.

>>3284
I assume you are talking about Neo-Nazis, because Nazi Germany was not about free speech and silenced people and the media constantly...

But Neo-Nazis aren't in favor of universal free speech. Only free speech for people they consider "people" (i.e. whites) So yes, I am against their version of free speech. Moreover, I question whether they actually ARE for free speech, or try to use free speech as a shield to protect their rhetoric while still trying to silence their detractors.

 No.3287

>>3285
>I've insulted you by disagreeing with you and "misrepresenting" you
No, you've directly insulted me, too.
The quote I pointed out in >>3283 was in context to you saying I had a "mood disorder". And of course, there's been plenty of other instances besides that.
>but I've never called you a racist with no empathy. I
You've definitely called me a racist. That was one of the earliest problems you and I had.

> I don't think you're a racist. I think you hold some racist views, and are too stubborn to admit it, but we went over why I don't think holding racist views and being a racist are the same thing.
Well I'm very happy to hear that. It's nice to know. Genuinely.
Though you did say it ages ago, during your political ban as I recall since it was a problem we had run in to a few times, and one I had ultimately complained about.

> I've also never said you lack empathy or that you're "an asshole", especially since that last one violates the rules.
Not so sure about that. I am fairly certain you have called me an asshole, a few times. Usually resulted in the thread getting locked, at that point.
Suggestion of being unempathetic had come up plenty of times, though, for sure. Sometimes more as a blanket for anyone who holds a belief, too. I believe, in the 2A thread, it was something along the lines of "Seems sort of counter-productive to vote against representatives who value human life."

Though, again, by your own logic;  "That wasn't an insult. It was my honest opinion about his behavior".
So, by that metric, I've never insulted you either.

>As for mint, it actually wasn't my honest opinion about him. My honest opinions about him are far, far worse. I felt what I said was holding back, but apparently it was still too far.
I'm not really disputing that. My point was, I said what I said mainly because it was apparently fine for you to say what you did about Mint, as something of a 'proving a point' matter.
It was, in a way, something of bait for Zecora. I expected the standard suggested would not actually hold up. Was a bit surprised when nothing was done, but, I guess it'd be hard to argue the case when I inevitably complained about it.

>I'm fine with voice. I'd prefer it, in fact.
Fair enough, then. I'd prefer it that way as well, for the reasons I mentioned. Plus, I think it generally helps humanize people. IT's a bit easier to hate folk when you don't think of them as anything but text on a screen.

>I assume you are talking about Neo-Nazis, because Nazi Germany was not about free speech and silenced people and the media constantly...
I'd consider it more or less the same. I think the Nazi party would also be making free speech arguments if they were getting censored at the time.

>But Neo-Nazis aren't in favor of universal free speech. Only free speech for people they consider "people" (i.e. whites)
What?
I do not think I believe that.
It's something I've never heard anyone say.
Where did you hear that one? Maybe they're radically different from the ones I usually end up talking to.

>So yes, I am against their version of free speech. Moreover, I question whether they actually ARE for free speech, or try to use free speech as a shield to protect their rhetoric while silencing their detractors.
Reasonable. In that case, anything you'd point to and say "Nazis also like this", I'd just say the same.
I'm against their version of that thing.
I question whether they actually are for that thing, or are just using it as a shield/bait to seem more reasonable.

 No.3295

>>3276
> If I think kicking puppies is bad, I see people who kick puppies as a bad person. The only way not to is to not think the act of kicking puppies is bad, or to find out that person was forced to kick a puppy against their will.
What is someone believes that puppies enjoyed being kicked or that it is good for their health or that or it is a normal part of obedience training?  Admittedly it is unlikely in the puppy kicking scenario, but other cases are less clear cut.  


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]