[Cass]

There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility.

An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me.

It's a great thing to have political discussions and to try to see all sides of a topic. Your willingness to see the other side's points should stop at the point where the other side is actively trying harm people for the crime of existing in this world. (See also: antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, racism.)

[arka2147483647]

Im not american,

But i feel that on the long term the list of ”too wrong to discuss” opinion tends to grow, until you reach the point where civil and peacefull discussion becomes impossible.

To me it seems this is the road U.S. is walking on.

[runawaybottle]

Right.

The logical end to all of this exists in places in this world. You cannot share your opinion on Islam in some parts of this world, you’ll die. You cannot speak out against the government in China, you will be in jail.

It’s called political persecution. We are on the proverbial slippery slope.

[throwaway3699]

You should be civil because it's a representation of your own character. To do otherwise is literally you being the problem.

[nautilus12]

"There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility."

The people that you think don't deserve civility in this scenario literally have the exact same viewpoint. This is the disconnect and it goes both ways.

Unless its straight up illegal, civility should always apply.

[cozuya]

For the most part, advocating for racism, sexism, white supremacy, and Nazism is not illegal. Should we be civil with people who are in favor of them?

[nautilus12]

Yes. How else do you plan on making them see the error of their ways. I guarantee being uncivil with them will just make them double down on their beliefs.

[nec4b]

Being civil has little to do with the person you disagree with, but a lot more who you are and how you were raised up.

[knorker]

> An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world

This a dog whistle. Please define "harm", and "existing".

This phrase is so often used by people who say "silence is violence" (it's literally not).

I don't think you're being honest in your argument, here. You are implying lynchings and holocaust, but is that truly the debates you're applying your litmus test on? I highly doubt that.

Are you not more likely to apply it to:

* trans women competing in sports with biological women

* abortion

* pronouns

* equality of outcome

right?

I'm not even saying I disagree with you on any of those points. But your "litmus test" allows you to point your finger where the harm is, and shut down debate, cancel the person, and "punch a nazi".

And you also consider yourself as having monopoly on defining what pros and cons fall under "harm", and "existing".

E.g. if you define misusing pronouns to be harm, someone else could define compelled speach to be to surrender the right to your own thoughts (2+2=5, from 1984). Again, I am not saying I disagree with you on the point, but both sides here have a very good case for screaming "harm!!!! I have harm here! Just for existing!!!".

Same with a trans woman competing with a biosex woman. "Harm for just existing" applies equally, actually, to both women. Now what? You're just stuck screaming "fascist!" to each other. Why? What are you actually trying to accomplish?

You will lose people with this attitude, not gain them. See Sweden and Trump.

> Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion

I don't think you know what "hate" means.

> I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me.

So you're admitting that your argument is based in threat of violence?

[whamlastxmas]

The problem is that "advocating harm" is extremely dependent on perspective. Hard left would say anyone opposed to single payer healthcare is advocating harm. Or that landlords are advocating harm by commodifying something people die without.

[golergka]

I would completely stand behind this comment if the word "harm" wasn't completely redefined in the last few years.

Just in case: speech, however abusive, or denial of association or services is never "harm".

Replying to a deleted comment: I think that white-only service is asshole behavior, just as holocaust denial and other stuff. I fight and would continue to fight it with education, counter-propaganda and civil boycott, but I would fight for those people to have legal right to do it without persecution by government at the same time.

[chromatin]

You’re fucked either way mate because “silence is violence”

[nautilus12]

Watch out, pointing out that "silence is violence" is an oxymoron is also violence.