You must log in or register to comment.
For some reason, I immediately assumed they were talking about Eric S. Raymond
This is also the rationale to people defending Nazis because “it’s just their opinions”.
No, it is not “just opinions” when you want to terrorise and murder other people simply for having been born. It is not “just opinions” that you want to abolish democracy for a totalitarian police state. It is not “just opinions” that you manifest that you are working towards this society. It is not “just opinions” that you express this in public in order to make other people live in fear for your “opinions” to become reality.
It is violence. And violent aggression is justified to be met with violent defence.
Punch a nazi today, kids. Every day is punch a nazi day.
Edit: Sorry, I went wild and somewhat unrelated. I didn’t intend to diminish the topic of womens rights. Every day is of course also a punch a sexist day, regardless their other opinions.
No, it is not “just opinions” when you want to terrorise and murder other people simply for having been born.
I can’t seem to explain this to people. “Oh just respect that he has a different political opinion”
His political opinion is branding anyone who disagrees with him about whether or not we should kill all LGBT people (He thinks we should, I happen to believe that such an action isn’t very cash money though being a transwoman I may be biased) a secret pedophile.
Double punch sexist nazis
Is there any other kind?
Hmmm, I know Savitri Devi hated just about everyone, but can’t recall if she was sexist.
Good point. The Behind the Bastards on her was pretty wild.
Same place I learned about her.
Catholic nazis?
Oh wait, it’s the same.
Always has been. They can slap on a genteel veneer with their faux progressive popes, but the structure is always the same.
This is also the rationale to people defending Nazis because “it’s just their opinions”.
I find that it is mostly Americans who do this sort of thing because of exaltation of free speech. I don’t wish it would happen to the US, but it is primarily because they haven’t had much experience with inciting hatred that led to genocide. Other parts of the world have had this experience so they have restrictions.
Don’t get me wrong, I love free speech as much as the next guy, but as seeing how unbridled speech led to genocide in many cases, I used to be absolutist and now I am on the fence. I think free speech is something that will be perpetually debated. I was told the social contract could define what is acceptable speech and what isn’t; but society at times is not a great arbiter of many things.
they haven’t had much experience with inciting hatred that led to genocide
The indigenous peoples of North America might have something to say about that.
I am not saying hate speech hasn’t had any role at all on what happened to Native Americans, but to my knowledge there wasn’t a deliberate and systemic call to eradicate Native Americans unlike with the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide. A lot of native people and colonisers have initially gotten along, but many colonial conflicts happened because of neither misunderstanding or some trumped up cassus belli orchestrated by local colonial officials, which the central government may not know due to poor communications over long distances at the time. Even the Spanish crown have gotten appalled after learning what Christopher Columbus did to indigenous population in Hispaniola, which took a long time for Spain to find out because of long distance.
Again, I am not trying to say hate speech hasn’t had any role whatsoever on the genocide on Native Americans, but it is more complicated than that. Western colonisers still saw indigenous people as humans, but lesser if that makes sense. That’s why even for the Western Allies, the systemic hate speech and call to rid the Jews had been a step too far, even though they themselves own colonies.
As an American, I can assure you, there absolutely was a deliberate and systemic call to eradicate Native Americans. They were (and often still are) completely dehumanized (there was a period of time in America where bounty hunters could be paid for “Genuine Indian Scalps”. It’s also still happening, it just seems like nobody cares anymore.
Take the border for example. It’s the biggest thing that nobody will shut up about. The border. Border. Border. Border. But what do they fail to mention every single time? Who’s home are they building that wall through? Who’s land is that?
The Spanish were appalled by some of Columbus’s actions, sure, but withing 50 years that cranked that dial up! Or did you think all of those missions and plantations built themselves
Nah, here in Sweden as I very everywhere there are plenty of “centrist” idiots and misguided valiant defenders of “free speech” that believe Nazis should have a voice like any other political fraction. Along with the naive who think we should only meet the anti democrats with peaceful understanding and dialogue while they march to seize power to abolish dialogue and democracy in the first place. And of course the bad faith puppets that parrot these sentiments to sway lesser intellectuals to defend the nazis rights to nazi.
As for your second paragraph, speech is not a singular thing. Words are not a singular thing. There are plenty of things that are restricted from frivolous communication and nobody thinks twice about it. Yet when it comes to hate speech, it’s suddenly difficult.
There are plenty of things that are restricted from frivolous communication and nobody thinks twice about it. Yet when it comes to hate speech, it’s suddenly difficult.
Homophobia used to be accepted because society accepted it, but not anymore, at least in the West. The Holocaust happened because Germans at the time accepted it.
Ultimately, I think what is acceptable speech is down to morality, which many could argue whether morality is subjective or objective. And I don’t have time to argue for either because I am not a philosopher.
A lot of things have changed. It is not exclusive to speech. And speech is not only one thing.
Action comes from speech though.
This reminds me a conversation I had with my wife’s coworkers, and they were trash talking their boss and one of them (white passing) said that other that being racist, she was always professional and everyone went like wtf. This was in Brazil btw.
Rofl the polite misogynist. The worst
Tips fedora
M’property
Nah, Raymond’s a cunt and I’ve told a few Raymonds at work that.
I like this as a thought experiment: Lemmy, at what point does someone stop being nice? And is there a difference between acting or being nice?
Raymond is probably “nice” to the fellow white dude, polite and not physically aggressive.
Raymond is not nice to society.
Could even be nice to the marginalized they know and deem “one of the good ones” but still vote violence against them and be racist pieces of shit.
I know people in this exact scenario, in fact.
Of the people I’ve encountered this is the more realistic portrayal of a racist. Granted, I’m white so have a hard time detecting when other whites are racist, but when they are it’s always in the more subtle ways of upholding and defending toxic hierarchies.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who will outwardly rant and rave, but I feel like those people lack the social power to be a real threat (though their lack the self control might make them a more immediate physical threat) .
I know people like this. They’re “nic”. But what that means is they put everyone they know into “one of the good ones” box. So they’re polite to all people they know, basically… It’s interesting and horrifying to see tbh
With enough self reflection, that can turn around into changing their opinion at a systemic level. Sometimes all it takes is few comments from someone they trust, and some time to process.
That’s an interesting point. People can be nice to certain groups of people I guess. Maybe no one can be nice to everyone.
I kniw that probably you didn’t mean it that way, but it sounds as though you’re excusing Raymond.
Nothing new here, who doesn’t know someone who is very pleasant on the surface and a complete sociopath underneath?
Imo nice and kind are separate qualities, mutually exclusive. Raymond is unkind towards women, but he may have a nice demeanor. Lots of evil people can be nice around others in chit chat, but cruel in their actions and beliefs.
deleted by creator
Never heard the term gentleman thief, that’s fun. I had Southern Hospitality in mind. A notorious stereotype is that southerners are nice but mean, and northerners are kind but rude.
“Niceness” is largely performative. It’s based on words and little else. Being “nice” is based on how someone views themself.
Kindness, on the other hand, is rooted in an intrinsic belief that is shown through action. It extends beyond the individual and considers how their actions relate to society as a whole.
You can paint a layer of “nice” over an absolute garbage core personality. It doesn’t really mean anything. These days, “nice” can be used to describe a baseline level of standard civility that allows you to function in society. It says nothing about what kind of person you are.
This is an interesting question. Given a sufficiently functional environment “Raymond” may be functionally harmless as its impossible to for him to have anything crazy he wants. In a functional enough one he wont even admit the crazy shit he believes because it would see him excluded and possibly fired.
Do we then consider him eccentric instead of a POS? Is a sex murder a “nice” if he’s behind bars and we only talk to him about normal stuff and forget that he would gladly rape and murder you without the bars?
At some point we need to understand that someone who would take away your rights and potentially kill you if you didn’t roll over and accept his dominion isn’t “nice” just because he exists in an environment where he isn’t in a position to work his will.
Good point. There’s plenty of examples (fictional or not) where ‘nice’ people were driven to ‘not nice’ things and vice versa. The fact we need laws indicate that maybe mostly people are maybe not nice? Since if we’d be considerate we wouldn’t need those laws (in general)? It seems most people seem to think ‘being nice’ is doing things the majority of people deem as a good thing to do.
Caleb!
You can believe really stupid shit, but still be a nice person, so that question probably has a grey zone that would be hard to qualify, withe several “dealbreakers” in there. Like, you can’t be a nice person if you want to own slaves.
And who decides what the “dealbreakers” are? The majority of society? God? Some king? Santa Claus?
I know guys who straddle the line, and I give the benefit of the doubt because they are simply confused and don’t know better. And then there is the Andrew Tate gang.
™
That men should be given a wife by the state
Ok so while I joke about this subtext in the whole thing - if they actually want that, how the fuck do they expect that to work?
Historically the closest thing to “being given a wife” was a dowry, which in my mind is a stupid term made up for a family selling their daughter.
Whenever anyone says someone is nice, I internally translate it as them saying, someone is polite. Still a douche but a polite douche.
I also don’t think that men should be given a wife by the state though…
Well, two wives just seems excessive
I haven’t found a Raymond in Cascadia
I’ve said for as long as I can remember, “nice doesn’t qualify you to be my friend.”
Nice is like acquaintance level shit. The bare minimum of manners required to interact with people in the daily.
Uh, this sexist “cartoonist” again. Let’s just hate each other, shall we?
The worst kind of person isn’t someone who will defend free speech, it’s someone who does so at first, and then stops defending it when they’re in power.
I think hate speech should have repercussions, but there are lots of thoughts that are hard to explain. A big problem is the upsurge in these types of comics. I think they are not only unhelpful, but detrimental to the cause at hand when pro-Palestine protesters are being labeled “Nazis” and then detained. The problem right now clearly is the state, not the people living under the state, and someone saying a few offensive things, while evil, isn’t as bad as the government being turned into a police state before our eyes, who will gladly shut us up for protesting against them. Stop worrying about the Nazis in universities and start worrying about Nazis about to run the U.S. military.
Did you comment on the wrong post?
