• Draces@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re upset the bigot gets classified as a bigot? Do you also care for the flavor of your shit sundae? No. Bigotry is a hard line that does shape modern politics

    • ExFed@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, it ought to be a hard line.

      Question is, though, where’s the line? We don’t all come with the same exact moral compass, and we’re all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can’t just say “be a moral and non-bigoted person” and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.

      No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it’s arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.

      • ponfriend@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think we can agree that those slave owners were wrong, just as we can agree that Eich was and remains wrong about gay marriage.

      • Draces@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        where’s the line

        Well before donating $1000 to fight gay marriage. This isn’t a deep philosophical debate. You’re trying to muddy a pretty clear cut immorality for suspect reasons

        • ExFed@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In my experience, anybody who claims morality is “clear cut” is probably naive, otherwise they’re selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

          Yes, it’s a philosophical debate. That’s why I’m here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.

          • Draces@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I’m not interested in debating where you want to draw the line if you think it’s somewhere after donating to fight equal rights. There is a debate to be had but you’re too far gone if you can’t even start there

            • ExFed@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I’ve said nothing about whether I find Eich’s donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.

              Beware of groupthink. It makes for smooth brains.

              • Draces@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You really might want to do the same. Someone donates to fight equal rights and you’re now trying to imply condeming them is just as bad as the alt right. You are unwell

    • kenbw2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t like that he supported a campaign against gay marriage. I don’t know his reasons for doing so but it’s probably not one I’d support.

      But my understanding extends no further. I know he made a donation. I don’t have the nuance or understanding to extrapolate that into putting him into an entire box

      There’s something ironic about tarring him with a broad brush based on one attribute

      • Misconduct@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The dude spent $1,000 declaring where he stood on taking someone’s rights away and you’re like meh I don’t wanna jump to judgement here lmao

        • kenbw2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ll absolutely disagree with his action in contributing to taking away same sex marriage. I don’t see why gay people shouldn’t get married.

          I don’t know his reason for contributing to it. I’ll very likely disagree with his reason.

          What I’m saying is, does that make him alt-right (whatever that even means)? The only thing you can deduce is that he thinks gay people shouldn’t get married

      • Draces@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        hey guys stop being judgemental of bigots

        Honestly how is that different from what you’re saying on a topic you’re simultaneously admitting you’re uniformed about? You can afford as much leniency to hate as you want it doesn’t make you open minded or nuanced

        • kenbw2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          hey guys stop being judgemental of bigots

          Isn’t what I said

          All I’ve said is you can’t extrapolate “He disagrees with X there for he must also be Y and Z”

          • Draces@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes because X is in set Y and has an extremely high correlation to Z. Kinda like how we call things that look and quack like a duck a duck