Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Should Blax understand that perhaps he comes a little bit too preachy about his belief system and should be careful where he writes it and preach it, especially because this is not a religious thread and he risk antagonizing people?
Yeah. Possibly.
But as long as he is not dehumanizing people for believing something else or not believing at all (which I don't think he has) and that he expresses his critics within the limits of his own belief system (again, to a certain limit). I don't see any problem with his current rethoric.
Why? Because of sensibility?
Since when are we caring about people's sensibility here? People are still allowed to dehumanize trans people without repercussion, defend racist rethoric and hurtfull belief system. Why should this be different here? Or is protecting the sensitivity of believers more important than respecting the integrity of marginilized people or simple ethics in discourses in front of fascistic rethorics?
Furthermore, I don't believe Blax ever said "your religion is trash", which would be indeed out of line (for some) he said "all other religions are false" (or did I miss something?)
No political beliefs are completely rooted in facts. There is always faith involved. Simply because there is no such things as absolute knowledge. This is why scepticism exist in the first place philosophically.
While we shouldn't insult people, we should be able to say "your religion is wrong". This is a basic and legit criticism.
If we refuse that, then let's stop considering that we are in a place where there are real constructive debates. Because religion would be gaining in essence a special unwarranted superior status.
Yeah, and your censorship is already non-ethical.
Basically you are choosing which beliefs are ethical to critic and which are not. But I know that in practice, this constantly favors reactionnary thinking.. Be it for the censorship of the critic of religion or for the censorship of the critic of fascists.
Yeah. Possibly.
But as long as he is not dehumanizing people for believing something else or not believing at all (which I don't think he has) and that he expresses his critics within the limits of his own belief system (again, to a certain limit). I don't see any problem with his current rethoric.
Why? Because of sensibility?
Since when are we caring about people's sensibility here? People are still allowed to dehumanize trans people without repercussion, defend racist rethoric and hurtfull belief system. Why should this be different here? Or is protecting the sensitivity of believers more important than respecting the integrity of marginilized people or simple ethics in discourses in front of fascistic rethorics?
Furthermore, I don't believe Blax ever said "your religion is trash", which would be indeed out of line (for some) he said "all other religions are false" (or did I miss something?)
No political beliefs are completely rooted in facts. There is always faith involved. Simply because there is no such things as absolute knowledge. This is why scepticism exist in the first place philosophically.
While we shouldn't insult people, we should be able to say "your religion is wrong". This is a basic and legit criticism.
If we refuse that, then let's stop considering that we are in a place where there are real constructive debates. Because religion would be gaining in essence a special unwarranted superior status.
Yeah, and your censorship is already non-ethical.
Basically you are choosing which beliefs are ethical to critic and which are not. But I know that in practice, this constantly favors reactionnary thinking.. Be it for the censorship of the critic of religion or for the censorship of the critic of fascists.
You don’t know
you just have faith in what the Christian Bible says
You only know what happens when you actually die
Certainly there are aspects of Zionism rooted in whatever Logiko said. But it is a Jewish nationalist movement and when folks try to understand it solely through the lens of western politics, it gives them a misunderstanding of Zionism.
Especially since a lot of Israelis aren’t even from the west.
I say Zionism is more akin to Islamic nationalism than white supremacy because both movements are deeply rooted in religion, as opposed to secular race science.
Certainly you have people like Epstein that view jewishness solely through a secular racial lens, but that isn’t really the majority view.
you just have faith in what the Christian Bible says
You only know what happens when you actually die
Certainly there are aspects of Zionism rooted in whatever Logiko said. But it is a Jewish nationalist movement and when folks try to understand it solely through the lens of western politics, it gives them a misunderstanding of Zionism.
Especially since a lot of Israelis aren’t even from the west.
I say Zionism is more akin to Islamic nationalism than white supremacy because both movements are deeply rooted in religion, as opposed to secular race science.
Certainly you have people like Epstein that view jewishness solely through a secular racial lens, but that isn’t really the majority view.
