Tolerance for the intolerant???

Post Reply New Topic

How can anybody equate the NAACP with the Black Panthers?

The NAACP was founded when an organization like it was absolutely necessary. Nowadays, it's still necessary. They are a moderate group, often accused of being too moderate by more militant-type folks.

The Black Panthers were more militant.

I think of the NAACP as being like Martin Luther King.

i think of the Black Panthers as being more like Malcolm X.

They're both groups formed to focus on a single issue, so the fact that they only talk about civil rights and how they pertain to their membership isn't an issue for me.

There were other groups in that era that actually espoused violence much more broadly than the Black Panther party ever did but I'd say it's more accurate to describe them as 'black separatist' than 'black supremacist' even though both labels were used at the time. 'Black nationalist' would be a good term if they're demanding an ethno-state.

A group needs to have substantial political and economic leverage before there can possibly be discussion of them being 'supremacists'. White supremacism is a well-established pattern, black supremacism is not because historically the political and economic leverage to make it possible hasn't existed. There's hypothetical situations where the term black supremacist might be applicable, but there haven't been any real situations I'd feel that it's the correct term to use.

I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.

But still, these organizations meet the definition. I don't begrudge them but anything "White" is by extension "Racist".
Why is Black Nationalism OK but White Nationalism racists?
La Raza is an Hispanic organization whose name literally means "The Race". I have never heard La Raza spoken ill of in the media. Are they racists?
The point that I'm trying to make here is that there is a double standard in the way we look at race. I don't look down upon People of color. I believe they are every bit as capable of achievement as white people. But why are white persons demonized by the media and academia for just being?
Critical Race Theory being taught in our schools which desecrates the memory of MLK

Last edited by Mr Reynholm on 30 Apr 2021, 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I disagree. There are people here and elsewhere who think Autistic people are superior to NT’s. At times the NT’s are dumb, only care about social hierarchical, that Autistics have superpowers etc thinking have been rampant here. I have no problem calling them Aspie or Autistic supremacists. They do not have any power they are usually one person with a computer. Their supremacist beliefs are usually an overcorrection to our lack of power.

Power dynamics. It's the same reason a straight pride parade would be scorned by a lot of people who would be supportive of a pride parade.

A group that's the majority and that holds substantial power doesn't need an organization or movement to advocate on behalf of their rights specifically. An entity that exists to advocate only for the rights of that group would by definition be seeking to increase their privilege relative to people not within that group.

A group that's minority, holds little power and has historically faced discrimination isn't seeking to further dominate everyone else. Advocating to be included within the power structure isn't the same as advocating to be the only ones allowed within the power structure. That's the fundamental difference and why it's false to compare the two as though they're the same.

White people aren't demonized for just being, can you provide examples of that? I know guys like Tucker like to claim it but they never substantiate those claims. They just repeat those claims to an audience that wants to believe that erosion of privilege is the same as being oppressed.

And that's why they're irrelevant, they don't have the power to accomplish anything towards creating an autistic supremacist power structure so they can't actually do anything but preach an ideology that can't possibly be implemented.

Ideology is meaningless if it can't accomplish anything, that's why I focus on soft white supremacism instead of Atomwaffen Division types. The AWD types won't likely accomplish anything because even other avowed white supremacists want nothing to do with them. They might be a terrorist threat but they're not a substantial threat to civil rights.

You may be on to something.
At its core all of human society is about power and wealth.
Check out Bari Weiss. He was a teacher who was fired for his objections to Critical Race Theory.

When did 'the left' ever collectively agree or express that to be on the left you must tolerate all things? Tolerating any and everything makes you a pushover I don't think being the biggest pushover you can is a good goal for left leaning people or leftists.

I guess you don't. My question was relatively simple. Nothing in the rest of your post was relevant to that question at all.

Yes it was. You just don't like the fact my answer was nuanced rather than a simple yes or no. I don't think a binary answer is appropriate when discussing freedom of speech. My answer explains why.

When I see someone in the public eye talking about how tolerance is a virtue but that we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant, I usually assume that what I'm really seeing is just self-interest disguised in the language of universalist values.

It's a bit like when I see people say they support "free speech" but not "hate speech". Or when I'm told I should care about "democracy" triumphing over "dictatorship" in some country on the other side of the world.

As Vladimir Lenin once said, the most important question in politics is who shall overtake whom.

Though, a lot of this comes down to how you were raised... Like parents like children...

I was raised evangelical fundamentalist baptist and was only exposed to those views growing up... I wasn't exposed to other views until I went to college...
Now I have changed my views, but many others are exposed only to one side without finding out why others believe as they do...

I was raised to believe "Christian good, non-christian bad". But now I see that many people use this for their own good, using the name of Christianity for example to convince people to "tithe" for their own financial gain, or like in the case of that one guy I know, did something real evil to use his guise as a Christian minister to gain access to children to abuse... I blocked him from talking to me along with other family members now...

Anyway that's why my motto is "The Truth is in the Middle"... It's worth listening to the concerns of both sides... But at the same time, some views, such as people that believe the Earth is flat for example or believe "my religion is so correct, everyone should believe it and in fact it should be law" are not grounded in reality... I mean in college I Majored not only in Zoology but I took a Science Ethics course... And it's hard, for example human genetic modification might be good to help diseases, but most agree it becomes not cool if your modifying humans to make your children have blue eyes, or even other characteristics... Then you get in debates about curing issues like ASD... Etc...

This reminds me of a debate I got to attend in Maryland about Horseshoe Crab harvesting... Some people advocated for uncontrolled harvesting, mostly by fishermen that relied on them to live, while others said they couldn't harvest them at all because they're rare and their eggs provide food for endangered species... Plus the issue that they are harvested for an important chemical used in hospital tests that people haven't yet figured out how to manufacture... This meeting, all sides were heard and they made a compromise they can be harvested with limits to how many were taken, so the people that depend on them get what they need and the birds get what they need...

I mean yeah, it's hard to compromise... But doing so while listening to the valid concerns of others is very important...

Either you understand the reason for the First Amendment or you don't. It's as simple as that. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. You either understand why hate speech should be protected speech or you don't.

Ive seen nothing but verbal gymnastics from you.

And I've seen nothing but over-simplification from you.

It's not a binary debate. Context is important.

If you ban free speech then serious wrongs in society could go unreported and there would be no justice.

On the other hand there are things which are not appropriate for most, arguably ALL, people all of the time. I gave snuff movies as one example - rape, animal abuse, child abuse, torture, sadism are others. Not fine even among those who love such topics, in my view - definitely not fine if blasted out at everybody else on prime-time TV.

The problem here, which you aren't addressing at all, is the inherent contradictions of the debate. If you allow complete free speech with no limits then for all the positives (freedom, enlightenment, justice etc.) you will also have to cope with the negatives (libel, slander, aggression, grotesqueness, provocation, misinformation, manipulation, exploitation etc.).

Conversely if you attempt to ban all the dangerous extremes there's a good probability you'll also rule out a lot of the cutting edge material that's actually positive - art, philosophy, innovation, troubleshooting, counter-cultural information, alternative viewpoints, anti-corruption investigations, and anything else that goes against the status quo.

So what's your answer to that paradox, then, Mr. All-Or-Nothing?

To my mind some degree of censorship is inevitable to stop the innocent from being traumatised, to stop dangerous extremists and psychopaths from getting a platform, and to prevent fraud and exploitation. But any censorship needs to be delicately done, and totally independent of other social, economic and political forces and institutions (religion, big business, politics etc.). Ensuring that remains the case would need to be a 24/7 concern. But it always comes back to the same problem: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Incidentally, I say that as someone who doesn't have a First Amendment.

There's an irony here in discussing something in "yes or no" terms, that was an amendment. The American implementation of freedom of speech is essentially BS - you have the right to say anything you want, but if it's anything different from the white, Christian, male, capitalist doctrine then there'll be hell to pay. So despite all the moralistic posturing and the wonders of the First Amendment there's actually very little freedom at all, unless you're a fan of getting lynched. You can say whatever you like, provided you fit in. What sort of freedom is that?

When was she fired for that?

If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.

Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.

Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.