This topic is locked
I can see this is a hot-button topic, but I can't not point out how some of this seems a bit self-contradicting on two levels. The first being "I hope we're all beyond using offense to shut down people we disagree with... except this time" (because however much of a twat that guy was being, that's exactly what happened). The second being "I don't equate disagreement with persecution... except in this case." I'm not saying you were wrong to in this case. I don't even think Jorost's comment was directed at you, but let's be real here. I don't think that this one guy is enacting societal fact, and if he is what good would shutting down his ability to speak in this one place do compared to shooting him down with some facts? Did no one have any good studies they could have linked in there to make him look like a fool? We'll never know now.
Some fair points here. I initially littered this post with quote boxes and replies, but in the interests of keeping my thoughts coherent, I've streamlined my response somewhat.
Firstly, let me clarify that, for what it's worth, I'm not trying to claim that this particular discussion constituted some sort of persecution, nor that one person's opinion, by itself, is responsible for wider societal problems. Someone being an asshole on the internet isn't persecution, no matter how many reactionaries might try to lead you to that conclusion. The point I was trying, and perhaps failed, to make was that when hatred is given a platform, it's prone to lead to substantial societal problems.
I was trying to keep my post as broad as possible, but all the things I listed? Those are things that are happening every single day, in the US and around the world, because hatred has become the societal norm. Bakeries refusing to serve gay couples. Muslim women being assaulted because of their faith, and women with short hair being harassed in restrooms. Trans people being proscribed by law from safely using those restrooms. Women being told to see dentists for their reproductive healthcare.
These larger societal problems which could very rightly be called persecution certainly aren't the fault of one person on a forum, but they don't exist in a vacuum, either. No sane person wakes up one morning and decides to attack people because of their race, or their religion, or their gender, or to propose a law that concretely harms their ability to live normal lives because of such reasons. But these things happen anyway, because this hatred has been engendered by a society which permits bigotry to enter the cultural dialogue as if it were normal. It's not normal, and going back to Redezra's original post, these wrong, uninformed opinions are hurting people. Real people that really exist. This is precisely why most modern, developed countries have hate speech laws that specifically say, 'No, it is not okay to incite hatred against people just because they're different from you.'
Because yes, people could have engaged with these views in that thread, to try to put forth an argument against these views. And indeed, some did before I closed the thread, and at the time the original post was made, I had no intention of actually closing it in order to, as you put it, 'shut down his ability to speak.' As I said in my first reply to this thread, that's not why I ended up closing it, either. But what exactly does engaging or arguing against bigotry do? Yeah, maybe it makes the proponent look like a fool. Hell, maybe in a perfect universe it even persuades him to change his mind. But it still normalizes the views he was expressing; it still deems them worthy of debate. And that is the societal condition that exists that leads people to believe it's acceptable to hold those views in the first place.
Does stopping hate speech from one individual or in one thread or on one forum remedy all society's woes? Of course not. But I hope, at least, that it sends the message that in this one little corner of the internet that we call home, that's not going to be considered normal. I feel that makes Invicta a little bit better.
Hatred has always been the societal norm. The only difference is who it's directed at at any given time. I'm not saying that makes it something to be brushed off, but let's not pretend it is a problem unique to our time. The problem with silencing bigots is it doesn't make their bigotry go away. It just makes it fester in the background where you can't see it, and if you can't see it then doing something about it is difficult. If you instead make the person look like a fool with facts, sure. Perhaps you do establish that it is more acceptable to voice those views, but that's actually a good thing. Discussion of those views should absolutely be normalized because it is when they are discussed and in the open that they can be quashed. If you shut it down, yeah you've sent the message that "discussion of this is not allowed" but touching back on the informed vs uninformed opinions all you're doing is making the uninformed observers wonder why. It makes your position look weak. "When you tear out a man's tongue" and all that.
In reference to Ana's post, above: no, I was not talking about her comment. I wasn't really talking about anyone's comments specifically, just the general that being disagreed with = persecution. This is a very common feeling among conservatives, in particular, especially of the religious variety. Like when they equate the phrase "Happy Holidays" with a "War On Christmas."
But to put it in the context of Ana's comments, the things that she was talking about are not persecution simply because they disagree with Ana's opinion; they are persecution for a variety of other, real-world reasons that have to do with equality, power, gender, and a lot more. No one's opinion is sacred just because it is their opinion. While everyone does indeed have a right to their opinion, so does everyone else — and that includes the right to disagree with other people's opinions. That disagreement in and of itself is not persecution. If you say chocolate is the best flavor and I disagree, am I persecuting you? No. But if you say chocolate is the best flavor and I disagree and kick you out of my ice cream shop, that's persecution.
Or, to put it in simpler terms, all persecution is disagreement, but not all disagreement is persecution.
It's a common feeling across political and religious boundaries, Jorost. You hear about religious conservatives a lot and you disagree with them. That's why it seems to you that they make up the majority.
