Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Saying that Kirk was on the far right is very similar to saying that he had to die? That's not even in the same neighbourhood as a reasonable statement.
Well, yeah. He was simply someone on the right who had worked out how to make a living from it by pretending to debate with students.
People don't accept concepts like gay marriage because of any activism. They accept it because they were told by some that it meant the end of western civilisation! That the sky was going to fall! That society would crumble! And then...it didn't.
I knew of Kirk because I spend some time watching debates online. But I only had to watch him once or twice to realise that there wasn't much worth paying attention to.
Do you have real examples of this? I found a single instance of Trump calling Harris a fascist, and it was in response to her calling him a fascist.
It is a false equivalence to compare these terms to "Hitler." You're reaching.
A line from the Life of Brian keeps popping up in my head whenever Kirk is mentioned. 'He's not a far right extremist. He's just a very naughty boy'.
Why he called her a fascist (and that's only one of the examples I posted) isn't relevant if your argument is that calling people fascists results in violence. "She called me a fascist, but she's the real fascist!" is still inflammatory.
Did I make that comparison? No, I did not.
That's a bit like pointing to a shooting and ignoring the fact that it was done in self defense. Or pointing to "theft" and ignoring the fact that it was the judge fining a thief.
My original point had to do with Ezra Klein's monologue, which was in many ways an assessment of the act of murdering Kirk. Klein's analysis is good, but the deeper level has to bring in the Overton window and the fact that Kirk was murdered because of his extremely mainstream views on trans. Many societies throughout history would not follow Ezra's division of violence and politics, but they would all find a person who murders someone because they hold to a mainstream view deeply problematic. Someone who murders someone because of an opinion that 68% of the population also holds is just a wild threat to the societal wellbeing. They are a sociopath in the etymological sense. The only spot where Klein came close to the Overton window argument was at 6:33. What I have been doing in more recent posts is looking at the causes that lead to that sort of sociopathic disregard for the Overton window.
And now you're reaching.
It need not be necessary, but an argument against killing and an argument against self-defense-killing are not the same thing.
How does calling someone a fascist defend you from them calling you a fascist? The "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument rarely maintains any sort of credibility past 2nd grade. Like I said, you're really reaching.
This wasn't what I was talking about at all. I suggest re-reading my post.
Lies about "what is acceptable"? This is an odd notion to be. Its not lies about:
That is completely and totally wrong. Reality is not a popularity contest. This is elementary.
They can assert that a common opinion is wrong and should be opposed.
We certainly have seen people in the highest places label the political opposition as "extreme" and even "evil". I agree that these labels can be destructive. People should desist and stick with facts, and oppose wrongs via peaceful political and cultural means.
A common opinion deserves the respect of a common opinion. Interesting that you would attempt to disagree with a tautology, no?
But what does it mean to "stick with the facts" when you are talking about labels of "extreme" and "evil"? Unless there is some descriptive "fact" about what is "extreme" or "evil" that can be known without adverting to the Overton window, then wouldn't you agree that the responsible person must not speak in a way that grossly distorts the Overton window?
Again, not in relation to your argument that calling people fascists gets people killed.
You snuck in an extra assertion to your tautology: that common opinion deserves respect just because its common. Reality deserves respect. People deserve the presumption of respectability imo. Opinions are not entitled to respect. They have to earn it.
Could be. But thats not the same as being knowably correct. Again, reality is not a popularity contest. Opinions have to bow down to facts. Fact doesnt kneel before opinion, no matter how popular.
I dont defend labeling political opposition generally as "evil". "Extreme" otoh is a matter of sociological fact. But I dont find it useful because, as I noted earlier, reality is not a popularity contest. Sometimes the median is really wrong about things.
I only want people to lay off "extreme" when its false, as it obviously is when its applied to the half the country that opposes you. "Stick with facts" I think I said. Obviously the median-ish isnt "extreme". Thats just a matter of sociological fact thats easy to acknowledge. I might even concede that the median is more correct than the extremes most of the time. But, for sure, sometimes it isnt.
So one should not give an opinion which is held by 90% of the population a millimeter more respect than an opinion which is held by 1% of the population? Should scientific consensus be given no more respect than conspiracy theories? Put away your emotional knee-jerk reactions for a moment and let your reason guide.
The entities who were trying to enforce new pronoun rules and suggest that rules needed to be changed to allow for biological males to compete in women's leagues, and use women's changing facilities.
Ultimately, public opinion ended up organically changing on that, in part, due to the fact that the "ask" was much smaller.
