Donald Trump warns of the Muslim Problem

[pErvinalia]

See, here we are. I am not aware of any vitriol. Being sarcastic perhaps but vitriol?

You said: "Fuck that, you need to shut the fuck up or be more tolerant, in my opinion."

Vitriol burns skin I think.

You think wrong. This is the biggest problem we are having. No offence, but your understanding of English is lacking. Same in the other thread where you couldn't discern the clear allusion to a conspiracy theory in this Szasz guy's ideas.

What can I say? My record is evidence of my consistent opinion about this. I defended perhaps everyone banned/suspended from rationalskepticism I knew of and I will continue to do so because I believe its right, I like being like that.

[/quote]

I'm just saying, that by going off the hook at people who are intolerant of racists is focussing on the wrong offender. They are not morally equivalent. Same as you get a couple of determined posters here (always liberals) who get all fired up at so called "social justice warriors" for exercising their free speech to heavily criticise bigots. Liberals seem to be all for free speech for bigots, but when it comes to their opponents they just need to shut the fuck up apparently. Same thing you were doing in your above post.

[tuco]

So where is the vitriol? I do not see it. If you see it, there is nothing I can do about it. I do not indeed understand what "morally equivalent" means. It is my right to have opinion and my opinion is as I stated. There is nothing you can do about it as there is no truth, facts, to be find. If my opinion threatens your integrity or security or something, its not my problem. You are free to ban whoever you defined as "unwanted", sure.

[pErvinalia]

I don't want anyone banned. Where are you getting that idea from?

Again... I'm merely pointing out that you are targeting the wrong people by telling people who are intolerant of racists to "shut the fuck up". That's vitriol. I put it to you it's the racists that need to shut the fuck up, because they are being intolerant of people for something that is outside their control (i.e. skin colour). There's no rational argument that can be made to say that in a civil society we should have to put up with that sort of idiotic shit. And to put it clearly for you, that idiotic shit is a CHOICE. People are choosing to be irrational hate mongers. You're siding with the wrong "victims" here.

[tuco]

Nah that is not vitriol. "Shut the fuck up" is common speech to me. I see it in movies all the time. Its no different to me from I dunno .. Those who (let me say repeatedly because though I do not have the evidence, its James Bond thing, I suspect its the same people most of the time, serial complainers) call for banning/penalising people for being racist, should not be given attention. Its just shorter and gets to point the same.

Who do I target ffs? I live and let live. Its not me reporting people, calling for bans etc. I do not even read rules because .. what for? How can I target anyone I do not understand. However, when one human calls for punishment of another human, not in rhetorical sense like .. If all Muslims dropped dead .. but in literal sense .. This person is/sounds racist, lets ban her/him, then I have my say.

[pErvinalia]

You're not groking anything I'm saying.

One more attempt. Above you were critical of people who are intolerant towards racists. My point is that if you are only going to state that you are critical of one of the two groups of people (racists, and those intolerant of racists), then being critical of the people targeting racists is the wrong group. You should be critical of the racists. The reason is that they are committing a greater wrong (hence my comment about moral equivalency).

If you want to be critical of BOTH groups, then that's a different story. It's at least consistent, if naïve about the real world.

[tuco]

And you do not seem to be getting that I am not critical of racists simply because there is no need. Someone else does that already and such people are not in short supply. I defend the underdog because the champion does not need to. That is all there is to it.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, so racists are the poor little underdog. FFS.

[tuco]

Underdog is anyone abnormal, anyone in minority. Poor little .. whatever. Google offers this:

a) a competitor thought to have little chance of winning a fight or contest.
b) a person who has little status in society.

Could be racists, Palestinians, Mr Putin heh, mad conspiracy theorists, old people, Muslims, whatever. thb I do not quite understand the other side. Like when someone posts something like "Person A did something horrible" and everyone joins it to say .. yeah that is horrible. I really and honestly do not get it, do not feel it like that. And when I see this mob I have urges to cheer for the underdog.

[Rum]

So some racist right wing fascist yob with boots and a swastika tattooed on his forehead goes around beating up Asian kids. There is public outcry but you support the yob?

Good job.

[tuco]

Beating? That is illegal. No I do not support violence at all. If someone posts this as "news", for example, I will point out .. what kind of fucking news is it? .. and if there will be mob saying stuff like .. animals, deserve to die, etc, I could question presumption of innocence or motivation of the mob, the issue of right wing extremism as phenomena and well whatever comes up. It depends on individual case.

Simple views, solutions, judgements, are for simple people.

You dont see me starting theses issues. I only join in when what I see people acting like fucking idiots. Then let them eat their own shit.

[JimC]

Well, to me it makes no difference if you call my argument idiotic or if you call me idiot. It offends me not either way. What offends me, for example, is banning, for example, alleged racists or trolls or basically anyone who (vocal) majority deems as "unwanted".

Banning is virtually never used here. Suspension, however, is.

[pErvinalia]

The idea that all forms of speech are equal is, frankly, naïve.

[tuco]

Yeah, the notion of attacking argument not arguer .. where does it come from anyway? Some laws of nature or something? Because that is what various forums and communities I've had chance to see adopt. Do they have any evidence into this for example or do they just blindly copy rules from elsewhere? Your augment is idiotic vs you are an idiot. Big difference. Makes communities to hold together, helps discourse and friendly environment .. I can only lol to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.

I see. In a way, it could be said that its against rules to commit fallacies, logical fallacies. But that is not against rules. Against rules is to commit a particular one, which is nothing but arbitrary.

The reason I was asking about, some kind of research in the field suggesting that this particular fallacy is problematic when it comes to interaction on internet forum, it is not. I am sceptical about this particular issue especially when other fallacies from the list make it very hard for me to communicate with those who commit them. I call such people idiots. Or there could be another reason, without thesis and data: community decided. But that is not so according to my anecdotes. According to my anecdotes, rules get copied, with more or less modifications, from elsewhere.

The whole debate started when I expressed support for racists, saying racists are people too. And I get told .. but smelly .. wtf does that mean? So what smelly? Do you mind? Do you kick smelly people out? And then I get told about vitriol. I .. I who never reported anyone and never wished for anyone to be kicked. Get your shit together ppl.
,

[pErvinalia]

You are missing context and nuance.

[pErvinalia]

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10863524/d ... e-alwaleed