|
|
|
|
|
|
by UmGuys
283 days ago
|
|
|
First, I didn't mention anything. I read the well crafted comment you replied to and was repulsed to learn about Kirk's hateful beliefs, then equally shocked by the lack of compassion in a reply. It seems the context is now missing. The comparison is Kirk dehumanizing anyone he disagrees with. And being super racist and bigoted in the process. The isolated statements I've read indicate a resentment for non-heterosexual, not white people. This is inherently a violent worldview. Just like Nazism and just like Nazism, it can't be tolerated. It's quite a paradox. |
|
|
> The isolated statements I've read indicate a resentment for non-heterosexual, not white people. This is inherently a violent worldview.
This is probably the root of the divergence in replies. It is possible to both dislike a behavior or group of people engaging in a behavior, to speak out about those groups and not want to do violence against them. This is arguably the default state. Merely disliking a group isn't an inherently violent worldview and it can be tolerated, very easily.
After all we have all for decades tolerated feminists who openly dislike men, people who openly dislike whites, people who openly hate the rich, and so on. It isn't OK to go from "that person says they hate the rich" to "therefore they are automatically violent" and from that to "we cannot tolerate their existence". It's sufficient to just argue back. Or even dislike them back, as a group.
Some on the left struggle with this concept because they don't distinguish between words and acts. As far as they are concerned, saying "black people commit a lot of crime" is no different to physically boxing a black person's head in, but this belief is wrong (and actually is an inherently violent worldview).