Disagreements
Disagreements
Why are people quick to ban or block because a comment makes them angry, rather than engage, debate or respectfully strongly disagree and leave the discussion at that?
Why can't people handle talking with someone who has a completely different view who can explain why they are against something that was said?
Generally I like talking to people with different views.
Sometimes I HATE doing it online. Context, nuance and a lot of things don't translate.
Also, there's a lot of people that are either uninterested in learning about the topic but fervent in espousing about its merits. I used to like chatting with libertarians and I just grow tired of it with the same old discussions. So I'll just refuse to engage.
Eventually you have to think of your mental health and if you're dealing with a troll or something. It's just simply not worth your time.
Trolls are everywhere, all a person can do is ignore them and leave. When someone is clearly trolling in the sense of being insulting, any reaction only freeds
What I am referancing is when someone states a personal view that does invoke a reaction, there's no intellectual curiousity to see where that comes from, it's easier to ban them or try to get them suspended, which only proves how weak they are as a person because because it shows that they need to be protected from any belief they can't defend against.
What is your issue with libertarians, and what type of libertarian are you talking about? There are libertarians that I am strongly for, and libertarians that I despise everything they believe, but each ofthose are different types. It would be a misnomer or a mistake to simply lump all of them as being libertarian.
For example I believe left libertarians can cause damage because they want zero social restrictions, and right libertarians understand better about self control or self restraint and humility.
Some people are just looking for a fight. Theres no point in arguing with someone who isn't willing to change their mind
I can agree that sometimes a person only want to dump on people to make themself feel better. I am still not willing to censor someone like that. I refuse to listen to them, but I'm not going to censor them.
Each person can decide for themself if they want to engage with someone or ignore them
Because I've been having the same "debates" and "discussions" with these inauthentic fucks for over 20 years. Same dumbfuck talking points, same dumbfuck lies, same dumbfuck "gotchas!", same dumbfuck hypotheticals, same dumbfuck "I never said that"s, same dumbfuck everything.
Like, for example, compare the whole "kids shouldn't get gender surgery!" to "women shouldn't get partial birth abortions!". It's exactly the same thing: taking a procedure that is done incredibly rarely, to the point of being effectively nonexistent (needing to show up to a cumbersome number of significant digits in order to round to a number bigger than 0), and only under extreme conditions after deep consultation with multiple medical professionals, and pretending like it's the most common form of the procedure, which is gotten on a passing whim and handed out by doctors like candy in the waiting room.
I've had all these "discussions" before. I've heard, and debunked, all this dumbfuckery before. It just keeps coming back. The same people will walk away from me, after sucking up all the time and energy I expended to provide sources and statistics, then turn around say the same dumbfuck things to the next guy in line as if our conversation never happened.
It's a scam, and I reserve the right not to participate. Especially online.
Because 1. Not everyone is engaging in good faith. (See verb "sealioning") or 2. Their view is so hateful that even giving a platform by engaging with it can be harmful. Or 3. It's not my job to be content for you, I don't have to engage if I don't want to.
There's no such thing as "So hateful it's harmful", that is a facade or a tool of deception used to censor someone because the other side can't prove it to be false.
Hurt feelings does make a statement false, and something that feels good, sounds good, does not mean that isthe truth. Lies must have a small element of truth ind them in order to be believeable.
Something that is 100% lie won't last, but if it's 80% lie then people will stick to it.
What I'm referancing is if someone sees a comment they strongly reject, why can't people either ignore it and leave it, or have an open dialogue to see where they disagree and where something might be a false belief system?
There’s no such thing as “So hateful it’s harmful”, that is a facade or a tool of deception used to censor someone because the other side can’t prove it to be false.
You cherry-picked the comment you quoted, leaving out important context: "Their view is so hateful that even giving a platform by engaging with it can be harmful." My reading of this point is that giving a hateful idea a platform to spread is a reason to disengage with it, because by engaging with it you are giving validity to it in the mind of the author of that idea.
Even so, this is such a strange statement for you to make. So strange that I simply have to ask further: How do you reconcile this idea of yours with both the continued existence of antisemitism online, and being the mod for the [email protected] community? Don't you see antisemitism as a hateful set of beliefs that should be eliminated? That it should not be given a platform to spread? Of course, by your definition that would be "censorship".
There are a few reason for it. First if someone says "X people shouldn't exist" the conversation that follows isn't a debate, it's one person asking another to justify having human rights.
Another reason for an instant block is "just asking questions" then I can guarantee that anything that person says in the debate will be disengious and the whole time they will be moving the goalposts.
Yes, some people move the goalposts when their statements get defeated, I am talking about, or asking, why do people need protection and silencing from some who makes a statement those goes against what they believe in?
There's no reason to react so strongly. Simply don't engage, ignore it, and continue on with life.
Beliefs and opinions have never hurt anyone, only action hurts someone. A person can only offend you if you allowthem and give them the power to offend. If you think someone's statement is repulsive and forget about what you read, they can't do anything to bother you.
In a true debate, I expect humility and dignity, and anything less than that is only them trying to win, it's not a conservational debate to challege each other so iron can sharpen iron.
"Simply don’t engage, ignore it, and continue on with life." making that decision takes some small amount of time, energy, and attention, all of which, at least for me, are limited. If someone demonstrates they aren't worth my time to engage with, and engaging with them makes my day worse, it's logical to block them, it's only a benefit to me in the future.
From my perspective, I like to talk with people who have different views. However, when those views are hate against people for their race/sexuality/ethnicity/etc then my patience goes away. Their ideas are just excuses to heap on more suffering to people for things outside of their control. Other than that I am open to debate.
That means you do want censorship and silencing of others at a certain point, even though what a person believes cause no harm to others, it's only when they act on it than it can be damaging.
It's better for people to speak freely without consequences so you know what a person truly believes so you know who to avoid. With censorship or silencing, you will never know who someone truly because they won't discuss, and that person could turn against you when they have an opportunity to hurt you because they had to stay silent about what they truly throught all along but you never knew because they were avoiding any consequences for what they believe in.
You do understand that when someone discusses their beliefs, and those beliefs are hateful, then they have actually caused harm and damage to others, right? They took the action of espousing those beliefs, and they should be accepting of the consequences of doing so.
Reading between the lines of your comment, you seem to be trying to bait others into saying something like "I want censorship of beliefs", in an attempt to then turn around and feel justified in your beliefs because others "want to censor you". If you are truly trying to do this, please have some dignity and stop. You are arguing like a child.
For those hate filled debaters, I already know those points and to parrot them to me would be a waste of time. They would turn against me in real life anyway, because I was born a member of the groups they want to debate about. My existence is not up for debate and I would physically attack anyone that tries to rob me of my right to thrive. It’s tiring and downright nauseating to have your right to live free be up for public debate. No one else has to deal with that except for those of us the right wing targets. They don’t have to turn on the news and see folks condemned to prison, death, or worse because of who they are and think, “they are trying to make conditions here like that.”
Their strategy is to claim they can’t speak on their hate and then once they can they try to sway as many as they can to their side. Then you end up with laws targeting your right to thrive. Sorry, deplatforming for hate is the way to go.
-
If I make a spelling, grammar, or word choice error, or am unable to find a noun and have to describe the thing, then my entire point is invalidated. If I fail to accurately translate my shapeless, interwoven web of thought-color-shape-idea into paragraphs the other party can understand, they now have reason to regard everyone who holds my position as too stupid to be allowed to speak.
-
Insisting on a debate can be sometimes (but not always) a tactic used by people who want to wear out the other side.
-
The same reason I block, mute, and ignore advertisements: I get to decide how to spend my attention.
That's a short sided simplified view of what I said. I was talking about either comments on a public platform or in a long form format.
What? How is it short and simplified??Can you explain what you mean? I answered your question, using more words than your original post did.
-
People are soft skinned and live in bubbles. They think if they block everyone they disagree with they'll find the perfect place, but it never ends
Source: Know someone IRL who does this, and they're always angry at something
I strongly agree and support everything you said.
For example, I'm religious, and strict at that, but when I talk to an athiest, their atheism has no affect on my religious devotion. I can still talk to them about music groups, shows, current events, games, internet things, and leave God out of the conversation so we can connect as 2 people, show care for each other, and avoid mentioning subjects that we are on opposite ends.
