https://t.co/35C8h59M6v
— Jim Leff (@jimleff) February 14, 2019
I think I'm gonna keep posting this. Because I normally don't give a damn about "likes"", but I know many (not... https://t.co/LkWNbh92RZ
Why "let racists be racists" but not "let people who hate racists be people who hate racists"?
— 25thHat (@Popehat) February 14, 2019
Maybe because "people who hate racists" exercise great zeal in hanging that moniker on anyone they disagree with?
— Rick Haack (@HaackRick) February 14, 2019
And they feel entitled to do so.
Real racists are disappearing, but they won't be all gone tomorrow...which seems to worry those who find sport in hating racists.
OK. But the proposition "let racists be racists" presupposes that the people we're talking about ARE racists. So why would we socially tolerate racists but not socially tolerate people who hate racists?
— 25thHat (@Popehat) February 14, 2019
Because tolerance heals and hatred harms.
— Jim Leff (@jimleff) February 14, 2019
I see. But the racists have hatred, right? That's part of the quality of being racist?
— 25thHat (@Popehat) February 14, 2019
Also, does tolerating racists "heal" people subjected to racism?
Used to be. It's now untethered. A racist, this week, is someone trip-wiring a constantly updated database of tropes and gestures. Did Gov. Northam don that costume to express hatred, and/or do harm?
— Jim Leff (@jimleff) February 14, 2019
Furthermore, it would help illuminate my point if you'd entertain my assumption that everyone is racist. All perspective is biased. Bias-based actual persecution deserves the full brunt of the legal system. I don't like the mob, nor what it professes to police.
— Jim Leff (@jimleff) February 14, 2019
I can agree that everyone has some assumptions/beliefs/ideas that could be called "racist." But everyone's not the same.
— 25thHat (@Popehat) February 14, 2019
Do you think I should refrain from criticizing and ostracizing someone who says a particular ethnic group is inferior?
Depends how blatant and nasty. I have friends who aren't thrilled with Jews, but think I'm ok. I'm ok with them. I have other friends who think we're fine, but make "cheap" jokes, because they're not woke to the latest tripwires. I'm ok with them, too.
— Jim Leff (@jimleff) February 14, 2019
And that's your choice. But you're suggesting a course everyone should follow.
— 25thHat (@Popehat) February 14, 2019
If someone asserts that a particular ethnic group is inferior, and I decide not to associate with that person and to criticize them, you're saying I am making the bad choice, right?
Not for me to say. Individual choice is one thing, but modern networking empowers mobs, and I don't like mob shaming. If you're cool with it, have you thought it thru and deemed it cleansing? And prepared to be cleansed, yourself, if you ever miss a beat (even retroactively)?
— Jim Leff (@jimleff) February 14, 2019
Not for you to say? But you're saying it. You're saying "let racists be racist." You're proposing a normative judgment on a type of speech and association.
— 25thHat (@Popehat) February 14, 2019
Why advocate not judging one side, but judging the other?
I'm proposing, for consideration. Alternative is judging/condemning via runaway sanctimonious mob. Our republican system places checks on the power of public consensus, but Internet works around those checks.
— Jim Leff (@jimleff) February 14, 2019
But re: the pull-quote, here's full version: https://t.co/btNRQBN1ie
BTW, latest podcast with Josh was superb, I learned a lot. Thanks so much for doing it.
— Jim Leff (@jimleff) February 14, 2019
Thanks! We had fun.
— 25thHat (@Popehat) February 14, 2019
I never enjoy the smug feeling that I've won an argument. I'd have been happier if he'd come back and explained why I'm wrong (honestly, he probably just got too busy to keep arguing with some Twitter rando). I love to be shown why I'm wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment