The problem, of course, is that if objectivity is rejected so is rational debate.
Again, you have not evidenced this. (Of course, some theories of knowledge hold that objectivity is an illusion anyway). A rational argument needs to proceed from some premise or principle, it is frequently the premise, rather than the reasoning that is in dispute.
What is lacking, ISTM, is, for want of a better term, is a theological framework within which discuss social issues on the ship, and an over- reliance on an essentially secular economically-based political spectrum. Does Christianity not have something to say about the moral nature of human beings and their societies, the unity or not of the human race, the possibilities of humanity for good and evil, questions of objectivity and relativity, freedom (or not) of choice, the possibilities and limitations of social renewal, crime and punishment etc. etc.? I would suggest that a more (controversial) theological consciousness would offer a more inclusive approach that respects the expression of different points of view that some shipmates feel is currently lacking.
Doublethink:. Again, you have not evidenced this. (Of course, some theories of knowledge hold that objectivity is an illusion anyway). A rational argument needs to proceed from some premise or principle, it is frequently the premise, rather than the reasoning that is in dispute.
I agree that there are practical problems with the concept of objectivity even for those of a Platonic disposition, and that agreed or working definitions are subject to refinement and even rejection, but that does not necessitate a surrender to subjectivity, otherwise we end up shouting at each other from soap boxes and denying platforms.
Doublethink: Depending on the position being held, this is not true. Expressing the opinion, with or without swear words, that your interlocutor should not or does not exist as a human being is not indicative of respect.
Just to set the record straight, the shooting of enemy combattants whose surrender has been accepted is not, normally, regarded as acceptable conduct under the norms of war. Members of the Waffen-SS, officers or other ranks, should not be equated with the regular military.
I am not, however, suggesting there is a conspiracy behind a reluctance to call out bad behaviour on one's own side, unlike yourself, but the lack of courage to do so.
Isn't part of the problem thinking that there are sides here? It is somewhat depressing when people seem to be basing their reactions to other posters on what side it seems the opinion belongs to.
But even if one does belong to a side is one responsible for other posters on that side? It doesn't seem to me constructive in any way to call out lilbuddha, for example, every time she spams her opinions across the board and refuses to back down.
<snip>
I think a lot of that is down to the movement against “offensive” speech or actions, where “offensive” has been defined purely in terms of the subjective reaction of the offended party (e.g. if a BAME person feels that something said to them was racist, it was. No further examination necessary). See, for example, the way completely non-racist words like “niggardly” can no longer be used because of incorrect subjective perceptions based on how they happen to sound.
While there are counter-examples, I’m sure, in all the accents and dialects of British English I’m familiar with ‘niggardly’ does entirely objectively sound very like an offensive racial epithet. In those accents or dialects only the ‘d’ sound distinguishes it, and whether in a medial or final position it is often actually or almost silent.
The reason the neoliberal right bring envy into the discussion is that their ideology forbids them to recognise creditable and non-selfish motives as economically or politically motivating to any significant degree.
I suspect many conservatives would think a man motivated to work by the desire to provide for his family, and not consider that a discreditable motive.
While the conservatives are generally in an alliance with the neoliberal right, the two are rather different. (I note also that the conservatives have almost always got the raw end of the deal. It seems to me that the rise of right-wing populism is in part down to the conservative-minded feeling that they're not getting what they expected from the deal.)
In any case, notice you don't say 'woman'. Most right-wing thought to a greater or lesser extent is still influenced by eighteenth-century thought in which the head of the household was the man and everyone else in the household was politically and morally an extension of him. That is, a man working to feed his family is really only working to feed himself. It's not as if right-wingers think a man working to feed his family is doing anything different from working to feed himself.
Whereas the motive of wanting to organise society (i.e. other people) as one feels they ought to be organised, as a motive for political action, seems of dubious merit, whether one leans to the left or the right. The temptation is to consider this creditable if one agrees with their belief and not if one doesn't.
This paragraph I think illustrates my point. The neoliberal right think social justice is just another name for envy and power games, because they know envy and power games and don't understand justice.
Marvin the Martian .... (e.g. if a BAME person feels that something said to them was racist, it was. No further examination necessary)
You might have added that the "offender" might protest that he/her is not racist, when an impartial observer might want to say: "Well, given what you've done/said indicates you are!' As you say, further examination is necessary.
Indeed.
The problem, of course, is that if objectivity is rejected so is rational debate.
And that's where we are now. A place where how people feel about something has become more important than the actual facts about and merits of that thing.
Doublethink: Depending on the position being held, this is not true. Expressing the opinion, with or without swear words, that your interlocutor should not or does not exist as a human being is not indicative of respect.
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
I suppose it's a case of not entering the kitchen if the heat is too much.
Personally I thought the last line overly personal - but we are not encouraged to junior host - in terms of ship functioning, that is something we ought to re-evaluate.
And that's where we are now. A place where how people feel about something has become more important than the actual facts about and merits of that thing.
Dafyd: But even if one does belong to a side is one responsible for other posters on that side? It doesn't seem to me constructive in any way to call out lilbuddha, for example, every time she spams her opinions across the board and refuses to back down.
Perhaps I should clarify my position for my own benefit as much as for other shipmates. I thought I had made a general observation regarding the use of intemperate language and tone as a disincentive to a wider participation in Purgatorial discussions. Nearly all of it has come from posters adopting somewhat radical left-wing positions, though by no means all left-wing contributors (in fact most) write in such terms. What disturbed me was not only a seeming reluctance amongst the latter not only to regard such posts as OTT but to defend the practise in others for partisan reasons. I'm not in favour of heavy-handedness, which is one reason why I'm against dragging people into Hell, but I don't think such behaviour should be indulged. Regarding lilbuddha, I'm sympathetic to her causes, but her expression sometimes makes her difficult to support and to mobilise a wider constituency for her views.
I should also add that, of course, actions speak louder than words, however expressed. The matter in hand, however, is concerned with the latter.
Is it germane that the desire to keep religion out of politics generally comes from the right?
Depends which politics. Quite a lot of the right wing wants to keep religion front and centre of politics when it's about things like sexuality, gender and other identity issues. It's only when the issues are about economics that religion is suddenly unwelcome.
Perhaps it's the influence of post-modernism, but we seem to have moved from an emphasis on the importance of rational argument to a stress on the importance of subjective feeling as a determinant of what is deemed to be true
I think a lot of that is down to the movement against “offensive” speech or actions, where “offensive” has been defined purely in terms of the subjective reaction of the offended party (e.g. if a BAME person feels that something said to them was racist, it was. No further examination necessary). See, for example, the way completely non-racist words like “niggardly” can no longer be used because of incorrect subjective perceptions based on how they happen to sound.
Except no one said the word canno be used. The argument is that since the word almost always sounds similar to an insult, it perhaps should not.
. chrisstiles: As a matter of principle I don't feel that I have the responsibility to police the expressions of those with somewhat overlapping beliefs, unless I have some kind of relationship with or authority over them. Practically speaking this is something the hosts rightly assume for themselves.
A fair point. My main concern is the culture within which shipmates share their opinions and discuss their differences. There is no reason, however, why strongly-held positions cannot be debated within a context of civility because that is related to mutual respect.
Invective doesn't inherently negate respect and respect is not necessarily appropriate in a discussion.
The employment of abusive language is not designed to strengthen an argument but to close it down.
Incorrect. That will be a contextual thing. Swear words can be used to strengthen a point. In a text-based communication, they can serve to colour a response in the way physical expressions might.
This is not a debating society, this is a discussion forum. Communication and conveying of POV are more important than a debate style.
Doublethink: Depending on the position being held, this is not true. Expressing the opinion, with or without swear words, that your interlocutor should not or does not exist as a human being is not indicative of respect.
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
I suppose it's a case of not entering the kitchen if the heat is too much.
But is this not your complaint. You say Conservatives feel they can’t post on the ship but when it is they who are criticised you use if you can’t stand the heat. You appear to want to have it both ways.
lilbuddha: Swear words can be used to strengthen a point. In a text-based communication, they can serve to colour a response in the way physical expressions might.
Would you drawn the line at all in the use of profanities? Or is the stronger the language the more effective the response?
Civility is required when discussing urban zoning issues, or whether rural speed limits should be reduced to allow for non-motor traffic. Civility is not required when debating whether one identifiable group or other should be excluded from basic rights and services.
I am not, however, suggesting there is a conspiracy behind a reluctance to call out bad behaviour on one's own side, unlike yourself, but the lack of courage to do so.
Isn't part of the problem thinking that there are sides here? It is somewhat depressing when people seem to be basing their reactions to other posters on what side it seems the opinion belongs to.
But even if one does belong to a side is one responsible for other posters on that side? It doesn't seem to me constructive in any way to call out lilbuddha, for example, every time she spams her opinions across the board and refuses to back down.
Nice. And this unnecessary attack contributes to this discussion how?
Regarding lilbuddha, I'm sympathetic to her causes, but her expression sometimes makes her difficult to support and to mobilise a wider constituency for her views.
It is rubbish to say "I might agree with you if you were more polite." Whilst tone can be a factor in acceptance, it is not an excuse to stand aside in important issues. Speaking of which, it is easy to play tone police when one has no stake in the subject.
Civility is required when discussing urban zoning issues, or whether rural speed limits should be reduced to allow for non-motor traffic. Civility is not required when debating whether one identifiable group or other should be excluded from basic rights and services.
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language, whereas the left uses it constantly to mask the dearth of content.
We move on when we realise that all that exists in most posters responses are nonsensical soundbites, stitched together with expletives.
Or, perhaps, the Socialist Tendency on the Ship knows that (a) their ideas are weak and merely ideaologically "sound" rather than being any practical use, and (b) that using expletive-laden language will cause us right-of-centre contributors to move on to pastures new. Thus when challenged, the Socialist Tendency will deploy a barrage of foul language, this ensuring their policies are never challenged.
Civility is required when discussing urban zoning issues, or whether rural speed limits should be reduced to allow for non-motor traffic. Civility is not required when debating whether one identifiable group or other should be excluded from basic rights and services.
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language, whereas the left uses it constantly to mask the dearth of content.
We move on when we realise that all that exists in most posters responses are nonsensical soundbites, stitched together with expletives.
Or, perhaps, the Socialist Tendency on the Ship knows that (a) their ideas are weak and merely ideaologically "sound" rather than being any practical use, and (b) that using expletive-laden language will cause us right-of-centre contributors to move on to pastures new. Thus when challenged, the Socialist Tendency will deploy a barrage of foul language, this ensuring their policies are never challenged.
Which option do you think Doc?
A lack of four letter words does not render your language inoffensive. Your comments about the lady protesting in Portland are foul regardless of the words used to convey them.
I think civil rights should be extended to all citizens of a country, regardless of race, age, sex, gender or physical or mental ability, with very few caveats, and that those rights are non-negotiable.
Civility is required when discussing urban zoning issues, or whether rural speed limits should be reduced to allow for non-motor traffic. Civility is not required when debating whether one identifiable group or other should be excluded from basic rights and services.
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language, whereas the left uses it constantly to mask the dearth of content.
We move on when we realise that all that exists in most posters responses are nonsensical soundbites, stitched together with expletives.
Or, perhaps, the Socialist Tendency on the Ship knows that (a) their ideas are weak and merely ideaologically "sound" rather than being any practical use, and (b) that using expletive-laden language will cause us right-of-centre contributors to move on to pastures new. Thus when challenged, the Socialist Tendency will deploy a barrage of foul language, this ensuring their policies are never challenged.
Which option do you think Doc?
A lack of four letter words does not render your language inoffensive. Your comments about the lady protesting in Portland are foul regardless of the words used to convey them.
Not to mention his expressed desire to see civilians deliberately targetted and killed. That destroys any credibility regarding civility.
I think civil rights should be extended to all citizens of a country, regardless of race, age, sex, gender or physical or mental ability, with very few caveats, and that those rights are non-negotiable.
And that is what I think.
Great. Let me know how you get on in Saudi Arabia.
Civility is required when discussing urban zoning issues, or whether rural speed limits should be reduced to allow for non-motor traffic. Civility is not required when debating whether one identifiable group or other should be excluded from basic rights and services.
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language, whereas the left uses it constantly to mask the dearth of content.
We move on when we realise that all that exists in most posters responses are nonsensical soundbites, stitched together with expletives.
Or, perhaps, the Socialist Tendency on the Ship knows that (a) their ideas are weak and merely ideaologically "sound" rather than being any practical use, and (b) that using expletive-laden language will cause us right-of-centre contributors to move on to pastures new. Thus when challenged, the Socialist Tendency will deploy a barrage of foul language, this ensuring their policies are never challenged.
Which option do you think Doc?
A lack of four letter words does not render your language inoffensive. Your comments about the lady protesting in Portland are foul regardless of the words used to convey them.
Not to mention his expressed desire to see civilians deliberately targetted and killed. That destroys any credibility regarding civility.
Civility is required when discussing urban zoning issues, or whether rural speed limits should be reduced to allow for non-motor traffic. Civility is not required when debating whether one identifiable group or other should be excluded from basic rights and services.
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language, whereas the left uses it constantly to mask the dearth of content.
We move on when we realise that all that exists in most posters responses are nonsensical soundbites, stitched together with expletives.
Or, perhaps, the Socialist Tendency on the Ship knows that (a) their ideas are weak and merely ideaologically "sound" rather than being any practical use, and (b) that using expletive-laden language will cause us right-of-centre contributors to move on to pastures new. Thus when challenged, the Socialist Tendency will deploy a barrage of foul language, this ensuring their policies are never challenged.
Which option do you think Doc?
We all work with a set of things that we feel can be stated without the need of lots of words to justify them. That's true whether you position yourself on the left or right, top or bottom, front or back.
The question is the extent to which anyone is willing to put that justification down in writing when challenged by someone who doesn't see that as being obvious. Or, how much they just knuckle down and keep saying the same things. It's hard work to try and communicate with someone who doesn't share the same general set of basic ideas that they consider to be obvious. And, it's work that needs to be taken by both sides, it requires people seeking to understand and be understood. When one side tries and the other shows every indication of not bothering that can be extremely frustrating, and lead to the less civil language. And, some of those basic views can seem like a barrage of foul language to the other side - the thought that deliberately targeting and killing civilians can ever be justified, for example, is a foul idea to many.
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language, whereas the left uses it constantly to mask the dearth of content.
Offensive content is more than the use of 14 words.
We move on when we realise that all that exists in most posters responses are nonsensical soundbites, stitched together with expletives.
AFAICT you have never actually engaged with arguments when presented neither here or on the old ship.
Or, perhaps, the Socialist Tendency on the Ship knows that (a) their ideas are weak and merely ideaologically "sound" rather than being any practical use
Labeling everyone not of your particular political persuasion 'Socialist' or 'Marxist' doesn't really signal careful attention to detail or a close engagement with ideas.
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language, whereas the left uses it constantly to mask the dearth of content.
Offensive content is more than the use of 14 words.
Thatcheright. You very very rarely see me using that kind of language. It takes a lot to make me swear in real life let alone on a forum. There are many like me. You do not seem to see them. You also do not seem to see others from various political stances who do not swear. No one is a plaster saint.
The content is more important not the words.
Labeling everyone not of your particular political persuasion 'Socialist' or 'Marxist' doesn't really signal careful attention to detail or a close engagement with ideas.
Nor does the knee-jerk labelling of anyone right of centre as a fascist, but that sort of thing happens all the time without significant challenge.
Labeling everyone not of your particular political persuasion 'Socialist' or 'Marxist' doesn't really signal careful attention to detail or a close engagement with ideas.
Nor does the knee-jerk labelling of anyone right of centre as a fascist, but that sort of thing happens all the time without significant challenge.
Thatcheright. You very very rarely see me using that kind of language. It takes a lot to make me swear in real life let alone on a forum. There are many like me. You do not seem to see them. You also do not seem to see others from various political stances who do not swear. No one is a plaster saint.
The content is more important not the words.
Not if the words repel people enough that they turn away before picking up the content.
It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.
But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.
I am not the only person to think this (I mean in the real world; I am on the Ship I think).
When I pointed out that in the real world people will ignore the content if it is delivered in a repugnant way in the Styx thread, I was told it was just me and my friends at the golf club who did that. If it truly were only me and my golf club friends, why do we (the right-of-centre) rule most of the world as was stated in the other thread. In fact I believe both quotes were from the same poster.
It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.
But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.
So what fraction of the supporters of a particular opinion or ideology have to behave "badly" before you wish "a pox on the lot of them"? 'cause in this particular case, the vast majority of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder (both by number of protests, and by number of protesters) were purely peaceful. Peaceful protests have far outnumbered riots and looting.
I return to the fact that we are encouraged not to junior host - which it makes it difficult to challenge personal abuse that is not picked up by hosts unless you are willing to sink your energy into a Hell thread.
Thatcheright. You very very rarely see me using that kind of language. It takes a lot to make me swear in real life let alone on a forum. There are many like me. You do not seem to see them. You also do not seem to see others from various political stances who do not swear.
It is almost as if painting a realistic portrait were not part of the reason for his posts...
Civility is required when discussing urban zoning issues, or whether rural speed limits should be reduced to allow for non-motor traffic. Civility is not required when debating whether one identifiable group or other should be excluded from basic rights and services.
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language,
It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.
But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.
So what fraction of the supporters of a particular opinion or ideology have to behave "badly" before you wish "a pox on the lot of them"? 'cause in this particular case, the vast majority of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder (both by number of protests, and by number of protesters) were purely peaceful. Peaceful protests have far outnumbered riots and looting.
And at least some of the violence has been instigated by right of centre agitators.
It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.
But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, . . .
Unless it's the police, apparently. This confirms what most black Americans have long known, that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.
This weekend marked the passing of John Lewis, last of the Big Six still alive. Lewis was probably most famous for the "riot" at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. (Lewis is the one in the center foreground without the baton.) The @Thatcheright position would seem to be that Lewis asked for that beating by being near the police and trying to register to vote.
It's always frustrating to come across someone who claims that "I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people" without recognizing the frequent police violence that is a huge part of "the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people" in the U.S. The bad faith of this assertion is made obvious when police violence is cited as a reason why nothing should actually be done.
Comments
Again, you have not evidenced this. (Of course, some theories of knowledge hold that objectivity is an illusion anyway). A rational argument needs to proceed from some premise or principle, it is frequently the premise, rather than the reasoning that is in dispute.
The framework has been there for centuries. its just that some prefer to ignore it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
As I said previously, if you believed this you have had ample opportunity to demonstrate it.
I agree that there are practical problems with the concept of objectivity even for those of a Platonic disposition, and that agreed or working definitions are subject to refinement and even rejection, but that does not necessitate a surrender to subjectivity, otherwise we end up shouting at each other from soap boxes and denying platforms.
Couldn't agree more! And there are many more references that could be added to your list.
How does this work for you, Doublethink ?
I suppose it's a case of not entering the kitchen if the heat is too much.
But even if one does belong to a side is one responsible for other posters on that side? It doesn't seem to me constructive in any way to call out lilbuddha, for example, every time she spams her opinions across the board and refuses to back down.
While there are counter-examples, I’m sure, in all the accents and dialects of British English I’m familiar with ‘niggardly’ does entirely objectively sound very like an offensive racial epithet. In those accents or dialects only the ‘d’ sound distinguishes it, and whether in a medial or final position it is often actually or almost silent.
In any case, notice you don't say 'woman'. Most right-wing thought to a greater or lesser extent is still influenced by eighteenth-century thought in which the head of the household was the man and everyone else in the household was politically and morally an extension of him. That is, a man working to feed his family is really only working to feed himself. It's not as if right-wingers think a man working to feed his family is doing anything different from working to feed himself.
This paragraph I think illustrates my point. The neoliberal right think social justice is just another name for envy and power games, because they know envy and power games and don't understand justice.
Indeed.
And that's where we are now. A place where how people feel about something has become more important than the actual facts about and merits of that thing.
Personally I thought the last line overly personal - but we are not encouraged to junior host - in terms of ship functioning, that is something we ought to re-evaluate.
This was always the case.
I should also add that, of course, actions speak louder than words, however expressed. The matter in hand, however, is concerned with the latter.
The person referred to was myself, not another.
Depends which politics. Quite a lot of the right wing wants to keep religion front and centre of politics when it's about things like sexuality, gender and other identity issues. It's only when the issues are about economics that religion is suddenly unwelcome.
Does it? Or does it just say that the Bishops (or whoever) are wrong when sex and gender issues come up?
This is not a debating society, this is a discussion forum. Communication and conveying of POV are more important than a debate style.
But is this not your complaint. You say Conservatives feel they can’t post on the ship but when it is they who are criticised you use if you can’t stand the heat. You appear to want to have it both ways.
Would you drawn the line at all in the use of profanities? Or is the stronger the language the more effective the response?
This is perhaps why right-of-centre contributors leave. We don't feel the need for offensive language, whereas the left uses it constantly to mask the dearth of content.
We move on when we realise that all that exists in most posters responses are nonsensical soundbites, stitched together with expletives.
Or, perhaps, the Socialist Tendency on the Ship knows that (a) their ideas are weak and merely ideaologically "sound" rather than being any practical use, and (b) that using expletive-laden language will cause us right-of-centre contributors to move on to pastures new. Thus when challenged, the Socialist Tendency will deploy a barrage of foul language, this ensuring their policies are never challenged.
Which option do you think Doc?
A lack of four letter words does not render your language inoffensive. Your comments about the lady protesting in Portland are foul regardless of the words used to convey them.
I think civil rights should be extended to all citizens of a country, regardless of race, age, sex, gender or physical or mental ability, with very few caveats, and that those rights are non-negotiable.
And that is what I think.
Not to mention his expressed desire to see civilians deliberately targetted and killed. That destroys any credibility regarding civility.
Great. Let me know how you get on in Saudi Arabia.
Won't discuss unless in s separate thread.
The question is the extent to which anyone is willing to put that justification down in writing when challenged by someone who doesn't see that as being obvious. Or, how much they just knuckle down and keep saying the same things. It's hard work to try and communicate with someone who doesn't share the same general set of basic ideas that they consider to be obvious. And, it's work that needs to be taken by both sides, it requires people seeking to understand and be understood. When one side tries and the other shows every indication of not bothering that can be extremely frustrating, and lead to the less civil language. And, some of those basic views can seem like a barrage of foul language to the other side - the thought that deliberately targeting and killing civilians can ever be justified, for example, is a foul idea to many.
Offensive content is more than the use of 14 words.
AFAICT you have never actually engaged with arguments when presented neither here or on the old ship.
Labeling everyone not of your particular political persuasion 'Socialist' or 'Marxist' doesn't really signal careful attention to detail or a close engagement with ideas.
There's a lot of projection going on.
Though 14 words are pretty damn offensive.
The content is more important not the words.
Nor does the knee-jerk labelling of anyone right of centre as a fascist, but that sort of thing happens all the time without significant challenge.
[citation needed]
Not if the words repel people enough that they turn away before picking up the content.
It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.
But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.
I am not the only person to think this (I mean in the real world; I am on the Ship I think).
When I pointed out that in the real world people will ignore the content if it is delivered in a repugnant way in the Styx thread, I was told it was just me and my friends at the golf club who did that. If it truly were only me and my golf club friends, why do we (the right-of-centre) rule most of the world as was stated in the other thread. In fact I believe both quotes were from the same poster.
So what fraction of the supporters of a particular opinion or ideology have to behave "badly" before you wish "a pox on the lot of them"? 'cause in this particular case, the vast majority of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder (both by number of protests, and by number of protesters) were purely peaceful. Peaceful protests have far outnumbered riots and looting.
Unless it's the police, apparently. This confirms what most black Americans have long known, that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.
I think there's at least one other person on the Ship who agrees with you that George Floyd had it coming.
One person seems to be sufficient. Everyone else in both the vicinity and the movement as a whole is guilty by association.
This weekend marked the passing of John Lewis, last of the Big Six still alive. Lewis was probably most famous for the "riot" at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. (Lewis is the one in the center foreground without the baton.) The @Thatcheright position would seem to be that Lewis asked for that beating by being near the police and trying to register to vote.
It's always frustrating to come across someone who claims that "I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people" without recognizing the frequent police violence that is a huge part of "the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people" in the U.S. The bad faith of this assertion is made obvious when police violence is cited as a reason why nothing should actually be done.