A hacker known as Martha Root broke in and deleted three white supremacist websites at the end of a talk during the annual hacker conference Chaos Communication Congress in Germany.
Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don’t drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can’t fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren’t entitled to those same rights.
Refusing to allow ideologies inherently harmful to society doesn’t have anything to do with what you just said. We’re having two different conversations. Also ideologies aren’t intrinsic characteristics and thus can’t have or be denied rights, so it’s weird to make that connotation unless you just don’t understand what I’m saying.
I feel like you are not understanding that the determination of which ideologies are harmful and aren’t is ultimately a matter of opinion and you only support it so long as you agree with the outcome. Iran, China, North Korea, and many other countries are examples of the other side of your argument.
I’m not saying that ideologies are intrinsic characteristics, I’m saying that people have the right to believe in what they want to believe and that right to believe, regardless of what it is, is an intrinsic characteristic. Some countries might not have freedom to express those beliefs but that’s literally denying rights.
It isn’t a matter of opinion though. Hateful ideologies promote anti-social behavior, in the actively harmful to social order context, not the I don’t like being around people context. They promote social discord which is objectively bad for social order and society at large. There are objective measures here. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the whole idea that they are is one of the less valid ones. You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
And I disagree that anyone has the right to believe whatever they want. Nobody has the right to believe the earth is flat. Nobody has the right to believe in chemtrails, or any other objectively false thing. You’re entitled to an informed educated opinion, not to reject objective reality and replace it with your own.
You’re talking about measured health impacts on an overall population not about ideologies. The idea that other ideologies are anti-social or harmful precludes the idea that your view of society is the correct one. That works out fine so long as you maintain the majority, but if the tides of time change against you then the very opposite would be true.
A rural community of racist white people in the US aren’t anti-social or harmed by their view until that dynamic changes, such as a person of color entering the community. Objectively that community lacks diversity of experience which promotes growth and development in the community (this is referencing your discussion about objective measures), but the desire to not change is part of why we these people are called conservatives and isn’t fundamentally wrong. The thing you are repeatedly missing is that calling these ideologies anti-social or undesirable and not deserving of protection under the law only is your express opinion, not an objective truth, and you only support this opinion so long as you remain part of the in crowd. If the situation were reversed your opinion on whether all ideologies deserve the protection of law would reverse as well.
You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
It’s quite the opposite, I’m declaring that legislation is not equal to ethics. Ethics function purely on an implied social contract whereas laws function on explicit statements. Laws allow people of opposing opinions to coexist and instead of relying on implied incompatible social contracts they all have equal protection under the law. This by nature is the difference between Just and Fair or Equality and Equitable.
This argument does not apply to anti-social ideologies such as white supremacy that are incompatible with society.
Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don’t drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can’t fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren’t entitled to those same rights.
Refusing to allow ideologies inherently harmful to society doesn’t have anything to do with what you just said. We’re having two different conversations. Also ideologies aren’t intrinsic characteristics and thus can’t have or be denied rights, so it’s weird to make that connotation unless you just don’t understand what I’m saying.
I feel like you are not understanding that the determination of which ideologies are harmful and aren’t is ultimately a matter of opinion and you only support it so long as you agree with the outcome. Iran, China, North Korea, and many other countries are examples of the other side of your argument.
I’m not saying that ideologies are intrinsic characteristics, I’m saying that people have the right to believe in what they want to believe and that right to believe, regardless of what it is, is an intrinsic characteristic. Some countries might not have freedom to express those beliefs but that’s literally denying rights.
It isn’t a matter of opinion though. Hateful ideologies promote anti-social behavior, in the actively harmful to social order context, not the I don’t like being around people context. They promote social discord which is objectively bad for social order and society at large. There are objective measures here. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the whole idea that they are is one of the less valid ones. You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
And I disagree that anyone has the right to believe whatever they want. Nobody has the right to believe the earth is flat. Nobody has the right to believe in chemtrails, or any other objectively false thing. You’re entitled to an informed educated opinion, not to reject objective reality and replace it with your own.
You’re still not getting it.
You’re talking about measured health impacts on an overall population not about ideologies. The idea that other ideologies are anti-social or harmful precludes the idea that your view of society is the correct one. That works out fine so long as you maintain the majority, but if the tides of time change against you then the very opposite would be true.
A rural community of racist white people in the US aren’t anti-social or harmed by their view until that dynamic changes, such as a person of color entering the community. Objectively that community lacks diversity of experience which promotes growth and development in the community (this is referencing your discussion about objective measures), but the desire to not change is part of why we these people are called conservatives and isn’t fundamentally wrong. The thing you are repeatedly missing is that calling these ideologies anti-social or undesirable and not deserving of protection under the law only is your express opinion, not an objective truth, and you only support this opinion so long as you remain part of the in crowd. If the situation were reversed your opinion on whether all ideologies deserve the protection of law would reverse as well.
It’s quite the opposite, I’m declaring that legislation is not equal to ethics. Ethics function purely on an implied social contract whereas laws function on explicit statements. Laws allow people of opposing opinions to coexist and instead of relying on implied incompatible social contracts they all have equal protection under the law. This by nature is the difference between Just and Fair or Equality and Equitable.