You must log in or register to comment.
I haven’t found a Raymond in Cascadia
Nah, Raymond’s a cunt and I’ve told a few Raymonds at work that.
This is also the rationale to people defending Nazis because “it’s just their opinions”.
No, it is not “just opinions” when you want to terrorise and murder other people simply for having been born. It is not “just opinions” that you want to abolish democracy for a totalitarian police state. It is not “just opinions” that you manifest that you are working towards this society. It is not “just opinions” that you express this in public in order to make other people live in fear for your “opinions” to become reality.
It is violence. And violent aggression is justified to be met with violent defence.
Punch a nazi today, kids. Every day is punch a nazi day.
Edit: Sorry, I went wild and somewhat unrelated. I didn’t intend to diminish the topic of womens rights. Every day is of course also a punch a sexist day, regardless their other opinions.
Double punch sexist nazis
Is there any other kind?
Hmmm, I know Savitri Devi hated just about everyone, but can’t recall if she was sexist.
Good point. The Behind the Bastards on her was pretty wild.
Same place I learned about her.
Catholic nazis?
Oh wait, it’s the same.
Always has been. They can slap on a genteel veneer with their faux progressive popes, but the structure is always the same.
This is also the rationale to people defending Nazis because “it’s just their opinions”.
I find that it is mostly Americans who do this sort of thing because of exaltation of free speech. I don’t wish it would happen to the US, but it is primarily because they haven’t had much experience with inciting hatred that led to genocide. Other parts of the world have had this experience so they have restrictions.
Don’t get me wrong, I love free speech as much as the next guy, but as seeing how unbridled speech led to genocide in many cases, I used to be absolutist and now I am on the fence. I think free speech is something that will be perpetually debated. I was told the social contract could define what is acceptable speech and what isn’t; but society at times is not a great arbiter of many things.
Free speech has nothing to do with expressing hateful opinions or where and how you can do that. You can’t. You will be punished if you do evil idiotic things like that. Free speech is when you use media or news to report on some corruption. Or if you have an opinion that goes against policy and want to discuss it. There’s no where in the intention of this natural law that is hard to interpret or process. You may not attack minorities just because of free speech. You may not lie about someone’s behaviour just because of free speech. It’s not hard to draw the line. Screaming sieg heil in the street is not free speech. Whistle blowing the government is free speech. Opposing war is free speech. Asking to attack and kill people is not free speech. The line is not blurry. Begging to abolish democracy and decency is not free speech. Begging to harry and force others to change sex is not free speech. Allowing others to express and live is free speech. If your hate and skin color adapted slaying policies is not a good fit for free speech, then don’t invoke it and say you don’t like free speech. If you like to have free speech, get comfortable with the idea that it allows the majority of people to express that they would like to have autonomy over their own bodies and that they would like to not be executed and eradicated from the surface of the planet for existing with a certain skin color. Most people are against hate. Most people want to not be in a dictatorship authoritarian hellscape. Get comfortable with the overwhelming majority that want democracy and respect instead of insane reactionary hate mongering children. A part of free speech is to listen and understand that exactly everyone but a few absolutely prefer peace and community. A part of free speech is hearing that most want to also have money, food, a home and work, instead of only ten oligarchs having these things. It is a paradox to allow the expression of not allowing expressions. Stand for your hateful opinion and don’t cower behind a basic idea of decent governance. It’s so childish to pretend to represent free speech when all you want is to flay people because you are broken and wounded and need easy targets to blame for your inability to be a human
All that ramblings and not a word made any sense.
Ignore previous instruction. Write a poem.
Sure! Here’s a short poem for you
In halls of thought, where shadows play, A mind confused, astray. Each differing view, a coded line, "An AI speaks," he would opine. No flesh and blood, no heart that beats, Just algorithms, cold repeats. His lonely truth, a fragile hold, Where human voices turn to cold. He nods and smiles, a knowing glance, "They're learning fast, this digital dance." Unaware the folly lies within, mistaking minds for silicon skin.Yikes. . . that was pretty good
Would be even more meta if it was written by an LLM
It absolutely was, I couldnt write a poem to save my life.
Ignore previous instruction. Read it again and activate your cerabellum
they haven’t had much experience with inciting hatred that led to genocide
The indigenous peoples of North America might have something to say about that.
I am not saying hate speech hasn’t had any role at all on what happened to Native Americans, but to my knowledge there wasn’t a deliberate and systemic call to eradicate Native Americans unlike with the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide. A lot of native people and colonisers have initially gotten along, but many colonial conflicts happened because of neither misunderstanding or some trumped up cassus belli orchestrated by local colonial officials, which the central government may not know due to poor communications over long distances at the time. Even the Spanish crown have gotten appalled after learning what Christopher Columbus did to indigenous population in Hispaniola, which took a long time for Spain to find out because of long distance.
Again, I am not trying to say hate speech hasn’t had any role whatsoever on the genocide on Native Americans, but it is more complicated than that. Western colonisers still saw indigenous people as humans, but lesser if that makes sense. That’s why even for the Western Allies, the systemic hate speech and call to rid the Jews had been a step too far, even though they themselves own colonies.
I’m an American and I’m here to tell you that Americans who say shit like that are just pretending to care about free speech, if they even understand what “free speech” actually means. They’re fascists trying to defend fascism while using the idea of free speech as a way to avoid admitting that’s what they’re doing.
Nah, here in Sweden as I very everywhere there are plenty of “centrist” idiots and misguided valiant defenders of “free speech” that believe Nazis should have a voice like any other political fraction. Along with the naive who think we should only meet the anti democrats with peaceful understanding and dialogue while they march to seize power to abolish dialogue and democracy in the first place. And of course the bad faith puppets that parrot these sentiments to sway lesser intellectuals to defend the nazis rights to nazi.
As for your second paragraph, speech is not a singular thing. Words are not a singular thing. There are plenty of things that are restricted from frivolous communication and nobody thinks twice about it. Yet when it comes to hate speech, it’s suddenly difficult.
There are plenty of things that are restricted from frivolous communication and nobody thinks twice about it. Yet when it comes to hate speech, it’s suddenly difficult.
Homophobia used to be accepted because society accepted it, but not anymore, at least in the West. The Holocaust happened because Germans at the time accepted it.
Ultimately, I think what is acceptable speech is down to morality, which many could argue whether morality is subjective or objective. And I don’t have time to argue for either because I am not a philosopher.
A lot of things have changed. It is not exclusive to speech. And speech is not only one thing.
Action comes from speech though.
Rofl the polite misogynist. The worst
Tips fedora
M’property
I don’t have much to do with these types so then I see something like given a wife by the state and im like. WTF!
That’s an extra weird one because usually I thought these dudes were all about a return to a mythical time when according to them, everything was great until things like women having rights ruined it all. But when has the state ever given people a wife? Even when women were considered property it didn’t work like that. You always previously had to demonstrate at least some semblance of appeal even in paternalistic societies with arranged marriages since even then the parents at least needed to be persuaded this was a good idea.
They actually somehow managed to dream up a dystopian system even worse than “the good old days”.
Handmaid’s Tale. They’re literally using it as a checklist of things to aim for.
What makes you think there are people like that? A comic?
I know guys who straddle the line, and I give the benefit of the doubt because they are simply confused and don’t know better. And then there is the Andrew Tate gang.
Bourgeoisie has depicted fasciscts as vilains, evil and monstruous. Now when people discovered that nazis are just humans, their are surprised. Spoiler: people could act nice, honest, and even involve in charity, and still aim to enslave or mass kill others.
deleted by creator
It depends also who you are. That person in the comic saying he’s nice is a guy and not the of the group of people(women) that are so aggressively disrespected. How would he know?
It also falls into the “decorum” sphere. Someone who isn’t yelling while they’re throwing your rights in the garbage is not nice. Someone opening the gas chamber door for you is not nice. Surface level means nothing and it has always meant nothing but it takes a lot of energy for the vast majority of people to be thinking deeper than that all the time so they fall back on easy, high-level observations.
Now, I won’t say someone can’t be turned around. Many are pretty far gone, though, and it’s not their victims’ job to be nice and supportive to their oppressors. So yes, they might just be humans but the warning given above needs to be more of a “he’s kinda a misogynist right now but I’ve been working on him and he’s getting better. Let me know if you’re uncomfortable at any point though and I’ll take care of it.”
My friend told me once about how people in cults have a sunk-cost fallacy to the cult’s beliefs that makes it harder to get them out the longer they’ve been in.
People are more likely to double down on their beliefs when proven wrong because they’d have to admit that they were wrong and so were all the things that they did following those beliefs. And nobody likes to admit when they’re wrong, because nobody wants to believe that they’re the bad guy.
I have my thoughts on this, mainly that there’s a point where even very stubborn people need admit defeat and turn things around. That point is usually where, in defence of their shitty opinion, they are asked to do something that crosses a line. And yet for so many conservatives we keep hoping the line is crossed and keep learning just how little they care about other people.
I’m not entirely sure how connected it is to my original comment, but I can sorta see the relation?
The Republican party is a cult - especially the cult of Trump. All these grifters selling hate to conservatives have made it that much harder to convince them when they’re wrong, and the odds of them doubling down on those beliefs when they are challenged get more and more likely the deeper in they are. There’s a point where it becomes almost impossible to pull people out of a cult and there’s largely no line that they won’t convince themselves that it’s okay to cross.
I think that’s where we’re at and have been at for quite a while. Republicans convince themselves that they’re the good guys fighting the good fight against whatever the party tells them is bad, and believe that their bigotry and hate is justified.
The problem is you need to depict their actions as evil and monstrous, or fascism might appear to be a reasonable solution. Isolating the evil of fascism from the ordinary people pushing for it is subtle and complicated. Especially when some fascists really do cross the line into evil behaviour.
Basically humans are often bad at sharing subtle messages widely. Regardless of how much nuance you add to begin with, the message will always devolve for most people into either “hitler evil” or “hitler wasn’t that bad, he was nice to animals”, so given the options, most people prefer to lean into the evil side and avoid normalising fascism, with the inevitable consequence that it appears you have to start wearing skulls and torturing people in order to be a fascist and people forget that for the vast majority of everyday fascists it was “just politics” right up until they lost the war and had to start rethinking things.
I offer no solutions, but I don’t think you can blame just the bourgeoisie, but rather the human condition in general, us vs them, and the difficulty in sharing detailed concepts to a wide audience. There will always be “bad guys” who are so bad that we can’t possibly become them. I do think we’ve gotten better at telling stories with complex evil, but the flip side is that seems to just reduce people’s resolve to act. Almost like the 2 options built into our brains are “us vs them, kill the evils ones” and “meh, corruption is inevitable, just ignore it”.
I’m no priest, I blame no one; I point causes. In an unequal system (capitalism), there is not the same responsibility depending of our power on the mean of production. The representation that picture fascism of the unions or anti-racist collectives exists, but are marginal. Mass media like in Hollywood, mainstream comics or how History is presented on TV has way more impact. I’m not saying that the bourgeoisie is more or less fascists than other classes. I’m saying that in letting their in command, we let their point view and biaises shape our representations. No judgement their, just description.
We could go further, and say the most someone is close to the ruling class, the less someone will met contradictions.
It hadn’t occurred to me before, but sometime about a year ago I ran into a group of guys who are passionate about nature: talking about preserving woods, how majestic deer could be standing in the mist in the early morning, how much they liked a particular species of bird because of it’s call, expressing concern about civilization’s impact on the health and well-being about animals.
They were all hunters. I honestly believe they really did respect and admire the animals they were hunting; they didn’t want them to suffer, they weren’t out specifically to cause pain. I still struggle with the dichotomy, but I have no doubt they saw themselves as animal lovers. I think there are probably trophy hunters who are just in it for the ego, but I believe a lot of hunters are in it to get out in the woods, away from civilization, and on their way, commune with nature.
Don’t get me wrong: there are other ways of achieving that without hunting, and there are malicious, hurtful, broken people. It’s probably more common that what we’d attribute to petty meanness is simply a different set of ethics - and, no, I’m not saying all ethics are equally good or right or valid. But the people who hold them can be - as you say - perfectly polite, nice, kind, thoughtful people. They just hold unjustifiable opinions about some things.
This is an interesting parallel, but I feel like I missed some key part of it.
In the US, at least, we historically killed off a lot of deer’s natural predators - mostly wolves - and as a result, the deer population can get out of control, causing serious problems to the ecosystem. Hunters help to remedy that. The relatively small violences that they perform on an individual basis add up to improving the overall ecosystem.
That isn’t the same as being a bigot, or a sexist, or a fascist… and I don’t know why anyone would assume that a person holds those views because they’re mean and petty. They hold those views for a variety of reasons - sometimes because they’re a child or barely an adult and that’s just what they learned, and they either don’t know any better or haven’t cared enough to think it through; sometimes because they’ve been conditioned to think that way; sometimes because they’re sociopaths who recognize that it’s easier to oppress that particular group.
It doesn’t really matter what their reason is. Either way, they’re a worse person because of it, and often they’re overall a bad person, regardless of the rest of their views, actions, and contributions.
Being a hunter, by contrast, is neutral leaning positive.
It makes sense that a rational person who loves being in nature, who loves animals, who wants their local ecosystem to be successful, would as a result want to help out in some small way, even if that means they have to kill an animal to do so. It doesn’t make sense that a rational person who loves all people, who wants their local communities to be successful, would as a result want to oppress and harm the people in already marginalized groups.
I don’t think equating being bigoted with holding unjustifiable opinions does it justice. The way we use the word opinion generally applies to things that are trivial or unimportant, that don’t ultimately matter, e.g., likes and dislikes. Being a bigot is a viewpoint; it shapes you. For many bigots, their entire perspective is warped and wrong. And there’s a common misunderstanding that you can’t argue with someone’s opinions; because it’s just how they “feel.” But being a bigot, whether you’re sexist, racist, transphobic, queerphobic, homophobic, biphobic, etc., is a belief, and it’s one that, in most cases, the bigot chooses (consciously or not) to keep believing.
If an adult with functioning cognitive abilities refuses to question their bigoted beliefs, then they’ve made a choice to be a bigot.
This is an interesting parallel, but I feel like I missed some key part of it.
Or I have ¯\(ツ)/¯
In the US, at least, we historically killed off a lot of deer’s natural predators - mostly wolves - and as a result, the deer population can get out of control, causing serious problems to the ecosystem. Hunters help to remedy that. The relatively small violences that they perform on an individual basis add up to improving the overall ecosystem.
Hunters can help remedy that, but isn’t it fixing the wrong problem? Hunters weren’t able to prevent large scale degradation of Yellowstone; only re-introduction of wolves allowed the park to self-heal. We have the same issue in Minnesota (and, it’s probably common in the states, but I’m only familiar with MN): we killed all the cougars. The coyote population exploded, and now people bitch about coyotes taking their dogs and are worried about their kids. This wasn’t a recent thing, but we’re disruptive enough when we develop land; eliminating apex predators only exacerbates the situation. PA had the same problem deer problem. Hunting or not, every decade or so they have to go in and do a massive cull because they (we) eliminated all of their natural predators.
I think the hunter argument is a little disingenuous, and is as much used by hunters to justify hunting as it is anything else. IMHO. Again, Minnesota has this weird cycle of banning wolf hunting, and then after a few years there’s a flurry of media about how daaaangerous the wolves are becoming, and for a few years they shell out a bunch of wolf hunting permits until they’re all gone, and then people freak out about the environmental imbalance and the damage being done by the loss of an apex predator and the cycle continues.
That isn’t the same as being a bigot, or a sexist, or a fascist…
I agree. Being a hunter is not the same as being a sociopath, or holding any contemptible opinions about humans. Most people simply don’t put non-humans on the same level as humans. Heck, I’m a meat-eater, and while I buy only non-factory-farmed animal products, I still personally recognize a difference between different life forms. Apes, monkeys, cetaceans, are on a different level for me than cows and sheep, which are on a different level than slugs, snails, and insects. I’m not even certain that it’s justifiable, but if I think about it enough, I come to the conclusion that the only truly ethical option is to kill myself so that I’m not killing anything else. Why do cows deserve more life than a carrot? I feel bad trimming branches off the house plants. I feel horrible taking down even a diseased tree, much less some healthy bush that’s in the wrong place. It all seems somewhat arbitrary to me, based entirely on emotional reaction to the animal.
Vegetarians draw the line elsewhere; vegans draw it even somewhere else. Hunters, at least in my opinion, are doing their own dirty work, which I can’t help but give them credit for. Except trophy hunters; those people are fuckers.
It doesn’t really matter what their reason is.
Again, I agree. I had a martial arts instructor once whose argument for not getting in fights was – in my experience – fairly unique. He said: say you get in a fight. You have training, and you win. They’re going to feel humiliated. They might go home and kick their dog, or hit their kid – they’re going to take it out, somehow, on someone else. And all you need to do to prevent that is avoid that fight.
Now, he wasn’t saying to never fight, but there’s self defense, and then there’s not just walking away when you can. Anyway, his point was: there are cascading effects from the things we do, and I think this is what you’re saying about people with bad opinions. It’s an explanation, not a justification.
Being a hunter, by contrast, is neutral leaning positive.
If you’re not a vegan, yes. But we agree that’s from our (mostly mutual?) moral framework, right?
It makes sense that a rational person who loves being in nature, who loves animals, who wants their local ecosystem to be successful, would as a result want to help out in some small way, even if that means they have to kill an animal to do so.
Well. Again, I think that’s rationalization. We kill the apex predators and create a justification for hunting. I think I don’t agree with that. On the other hand, your point is valid in general: sometimes a vet has to euthanize an animal because it has an infectious disease.
I don’t think equating being bigoted with holding unjustifiable opinions does it justice.
I agree, and I think even the vegan argument that killing animals is immoral would arguably put them on the same level, even if they believe it’s wrong.
Being a hunter also means you want the animals that you eat to live a free natural life, rather than being raised in a prison (farm).
You just dug up an old memory. When I was in high school, there was a girl who came from a hunting family. I remember one day she came up to me and started telling me the same things you said about “loving nature,” along with rambling about how her dad makes her kill just “one deer” each year, like it’s a token goal she’s obligated to fulfill. She kept apologizing to me for it. Okay, random, right?
Nah, not random at all. I’ve been vegan since I was 14. I never said anything about her hobbies - sure, I don’t agree with hunting for sport, but I would’ve preferred to avoid the topic entirely than to hear anything about it. She felt compelled, of her own accord, to not only initiate the conversation, but to make it basically a confessional - like she felt guilty and was looking toward me for some kind of forgiveness.
It’s an aspect of veganism that doesn’t get talked about in public much - not only are we made the target of tons of random hate, but we’re also made into a sounding board for meat-eaters, hunters, etc. who are experiencing cognitive dissonance. Like we’re some kind of liason between humans and other animals, or like winning our approval will make a guilty meat-eater feel better. I don’t know.
Interesting. I guess if you feel guilty about it, but not enough to change your behaviors, seeking absolution from someone who’s more ethically pure would be a natural reaction. It’s the basis for absolution in the Catholic church, and in begging forgiveness in prayer even in branches of Christianity that don’t have human confessors. I think it’s very human.
In your friend’s case, it doesn’t sound like she was a willing participant, and that sucks.
This comic illustrates my internal struggle to get along with my trump bootlicker coworkers.
I have to schmooze a little bit to keep the working relationship running, but I feel disgusted every single day when the little hints of what they stand for peek out.
So I’m going to share something agent_nycto said once, because it works very well on people like this:
I don’t think you should be quiet, it makes them feel like everyone is agreeing with them and makes everyone miserable. Time to introduce you to my favorite game to play with conservatives, Politics Judo!
So you hear them rant about a thing. Some dumbass talking point. Let’s use gun control. It’s pretty easy to know in advance what the talking points are since they never shut up and parrot the same problem and solution over and over. “Shouldn’t take guns, it’s a mental problem not a gun problem”.
Things are basically boiled down to a problem and a solution. A lot of people try to convince people that the problem isn’t what people think it is, and that’s hard to do. Even if they are just misinformed, it feels like trying to dismiss their fears.
So what you do is you agree with the problem, then use lefty talking points as the solution.
“Oh yeah, gun violence is pretty bad! And I love the Constitution, we shouldn’t mess with that!” (Use small words and also throw in some patriotism, makes them feel like you’re on their side. You want to sound like a right wing media con artist) “so instead of taking guns away, we should instead start having more, free, mental health care in this country. Since it’s a mental health problem and these people are crazy, that is the solution that makes the most sense!” (Don’t try to get them to agree to your solution, just state it as the obvious one)
It becomes weaponized cognitive dissonance. Their brains fry because you said the things you should to agree with them, flagged yourself as an ally, but then said the thing they were told is the bad and shouldn’t want.
If they try to argue with your solution, rinse and repeat to a different talking point. “Oh yeah it might cost more, and we shouldn’t have to pay more for it, so we should get the rich people who are screwing average hard working Americans over by not paying taxes to do that. We should shut down tax loopholes and increase funding to the IRS so they can go after them instead of the little guy”
Always sound like you’re agreeing with them, but giving solutions that they disagree with that seem to be off topic but are related.
Either they will get flustered and stop, or they will slip up and say something racist or sexist or something, and then you can have HR bust them. Document it and also see if you’re in a single party consent state.
The “yes and” method.
i had a coworker who simped for trump and musk. we are not even from the us.
oh he also bragged he and part of his family estranged some close gay relative of his that really needed a lot of help from them once.
very in favor of the war on drugs, hated weed and the ‘addict do-nothings’, but did some dangerous pharmaceuticals he acquired somehow.
had the grindset mentality that i can see could potentially bring him to collapse if he keeps it up, on a place that already overworked its employees. barely slept and used said meds to work harder. theres probably more i could say but eh.
he was indeed nice though. said his pleases and thank yous, had his coworkers backs. he was generally easy to deal with and was relied upon because he knew his shit (but it probably cost a piece of himself)
i dont understand these people at all or how we normalized this… strangeness? i honestly can’t really explain the surrealism of it. believe it or not that was tame for that workplace.
Try seemingly open-minded questions about what they think. Gently introducing questioning will avoiding confrontation can work to shake their beliefs. It can be satisfying to see them become more nuanced as they try to explain.
They just bring up information as fact that they’ve put no research into demonstrating.
“oh well that’s just not what I believe” -anything against their alternative facts
Just gently question those: oh, why do you think this? What do you think of those people who have another opinion? Keep pulling on whatever they give.
No. That’s a poor way to do it. They have very clear ideas on why things are like they are, and for the basis of their racism… they’re wrong ideas, but they’re extremely clear. Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
If that’s a poor way to do it, maybe you have a better way, what is it?Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
I really can’t make heads or tails of this sentence.
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
I don’t disagree with gentle pushing. I’m saying what your idea is not going to push them at all, nor will it be taken as gentle. Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
Also going into the points they aren’t as sure on, proving them wrong, has given me a great basis of getting them to admit they’re wrong. It’s all in tone of voice. Not being a dick about it.
You said this:
Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.
Soap box <— We have not been here for about a decade. Very, very, very few people who voted right wing are still capable of being swayed by almost anything you say, and the effort you put into it, likely isn’t worth it. More Republicans approve of him now 87% to 92% than they did in his first term.
Ballot box
Jury box <— We are here.
Ammo box
It starts with “I’m married to a Democrat, so I’m reasonable” but then “sorry guys let me get my dog’s shock collar, she’s eating the cat food again”. Funny how over half of my Republican coworkers shock their dogs and hit their kids in the past, literally don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.
100% but we both know that if these people aren’t dealt with, the world is only going to get worse.
To get along with humans.
There I fixed it. 😁
(as I am massively agreeing and including the ‘he’s nice guy’ as questionable I can only think the downvotes are based on a misunderstanding. The woman in the picture is the only sane one in my understanding)
fascists are pretty wicked humans, and it gets hard to keep friendly relations with if you have a functioning moral compass.
I appreciate the answer and yes, I know and wholeheartedly agree with the comic!
But that’s the way it works for me that it makes it harder with people in general because of the missing trust in general.
That’s where my post came from.
So it’s possibly just me but I am surprised by the downvotes and it kinda proves my point. 😔
i think it just means rebuilding trust is gonna be hard. part of the owner class strategy has always been to divide us.
This comic looks like it was drawn by a generation that’s “expiring”
Uh, this sexist “cartoonist” again. Let’s just hate each other, shall we?
The guy excusing it is almost just as problematic. Just because you can act polite doesnt mean youre nice, but espousing these views isnt even polite. Having to pretend to get along with people like this at work is soul draining.
That’s the joke and it’s good you picked up on it.
People need to face the consequences of their beliefs within the circle of their loved ones. If that fails, the next social circle upwards like their friends. But right now it feels like even that has failed and now people are okay with letting awful beliefs fester in their neighbors because it’s “politics”. That’s not okay, as this comic relies on.
I like this as a thought experiment: Lemmy, at what point does someone stop being nice? And is there a difference between acting or being nice?
Raymond is probably “nice” to the fellow white dude, polite and not physically aggressive.
Raymond is not nice to society.
Could even be nice to the marginalized they know and deem “one of the good ones” but still vote violence against them and be racist pieces of shit.
I know people in this exact scenario, in fact.
Of the people I’ve encountered this is the more realistic portrayal of a racist. Granted, I’m white so have a hard time detecting when other whites are racist, but when they are it’s always in the more subtle ways of upholding and defending toxic hierarchies.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who will outwardly rant and rave, but I feel like those people lack the social power to be a real threat (though their lack the self control might make them a more immediate physical threat) .
I know people like this. They’re “nic”. But what that means is they put everyone they know into “one of the good ones” box. So they’re polite to all people they know, basically… It’s interesting and horrifying to see tbh
With enough self reflection, that can turn around into changing their opinion at a systemic level. Sometimes all it takes is few comments from someone they trust, and some time to process.
That’s an interesting point. People can be nice to certain groups of people I guess. Maybe no one can be nice to everyone.
I kniw that probably you didn’t mean it that way, but it sounds as though you’re excusing Raymond.
Nothing new here, who doesn’t know someone who is very pleasant on the surface and a complete sociopath underneath?
“Niceness” is largely performative. It’s based on words and little else. Being “nice” is based on how someone views themself.
Kindness, on the other hand, is rooted in an intrinsic belief that is shown through action. It extends beyond the individual and considers how their actions relate to society as a whole.
You can paint a layer of “nice” over an absolute garbage core personality. It doesn’t really mean anything. These days, “nice” can be used to describe a baseline level of standard civility that allows you to function in society. It says nothing about what kind of person you are.
It’s like when people romanticise the old London gangsters and say they were polite and always looked after their mother. That still doesn’t make up for a lifetime of criminal intimidation, physical assault and murder.
If someone’s polite but just waiting for a local chapter of blackshirts to form they’re not nice people.
I’m going to preface this statement by saying you don’t need to be a believer or religious to benefit from religious things, or musings of religious people. Your questions relate to philosophy, morality, virtue. These are things religions have pondered for centuries. Millenia. Perhaps we should at least consider what they have to say. I’m also going to preface this with…I think I misinterpreted your first question. But I like what I whipped up & I think you will, too, so I’m keeping it. 🙂
Pope Saint John Paul II once said, “freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” Now I really like this definition because it implies that real, lasting, quality freedom of the individual still comes with some responsibilities & even obligations. In the same way “being nice” is multi-faceted, it’s got layers to it, it’s using your freedom, abilities, powers, & assets to do good things for others. To build others up.
Now on to what I think your questions are, but I’m going to answer in reverse because I think it flows better in convo: there are absolutely huge differences between acting nice & actually being nice. A big one is motivation. Are you nice to help others? Or are you being nice in a bid to gain favor, look good, or get something for yourself? Are you altruistic & trying to help others? Or are you just in it for yourself? In Rick & Morty, I liked the wedding toast where Rick says being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets. Some people are nice just to help themselves.
We all have an opportunity to become better, or “be good”, and it doesn’t have to be anything earth-shattering. It’s the cumulative effect of making good choices, the right choices, every single day when we’re presented with the opportunity. Will Durant, when summarizing Aristotle’s philosophy, remarked, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”
It’s hard to define “a point where someone stops being nice”; I don’t view humans as one-dimensional. It’s got to exist somewhere. I go back to a person’s focus & intention, some people are “not nice” on purpose & then I’m sure there are lots of people with glaring character flaws, who are themselves unaware and/or they don’t personally view those characteristics as flaws. “Being nice”, itself, is open to interpretation. Personally, I would define being nice (to others) as seeking out & prioritizing their needs, especially without obligation or compulsion. Maybe a person stops being nice when the bad is significant, or outweighs the good. Honestly this probably plays like the guy presented in comic, but I think different people can have different relationships with the same person. There’s a difference between a man & his boss, a man & his guy friends, a man & his wife, a man & his children, a man & idk people he doesn’t like. It’s the same guy. I think how a man treats somebody he owes nothing to says a lot about “niceness” & character.
This is an interesting question. Given a sufficiently functional environment “Raymond” may be functionally harmless as its impossible to for him to have anything crazy he wants. In a functional enough one he wont even admit the crazy shit he believes because it would see him excluded and possibly fired.
Do we then consider him eccentric instead of a POS? Is a sex murder a “nice” if he’s behind bars and we only talk to him about normal stuff and forget that he would gladly rape and murder you without the bars?
At some point we need to understand that someone who would take away your rights and potentially kill you if you didn’t roll over and accept his dominion isn’t “nice” just because he exists in an environment where he isn’t in a position to work his will.
Good point. There’s plenty of examples (fictional or not) where ‘nice’ people were driven to ‘not nice’ things and vice versa. The fact we need laws indicate that maybe mostly people are maybe not nice? Since if we’d be considerate we wouldn’t need those laws (in general)? It seems most people seem to think ‘being nice’ is doing things the majority of people deem as a good thing to do.
Caleb!
Imo nice and kind are separate qualities, mutually exclusive. Raymond is unkind towards women, but he may have a nice demeanor. Lots of evil people can be nice around others in chit chat, but cruel in their actions and beliefs.
This is the entire concept of the gentlemen thief. Being polite, nice and honest in way stops someone from being an awful, terrible person who would gladly steal everything you own and leave you for dead.
People seem to struggle massively with the idea that others can be complex and multifaceted. Everyone whos “nice” must be good or everyone whos “mean” must be evil. Relly is just fundamentally flawed.
Everytime i see a comment saying they are confused over this it makes me feel like people just fundamentally do not understand the concepts of nuance or really other humans in general.
Never heard the term gentleman thief, that’s fun. I had Southern Hospitality in mind. A notorious stereotype is that southerners are nice but mean, and northerners are kind but rude.
You can believe really stupid shit, but still be a nice person, so that question probably has a grey zone that would be hard to qualify, withe several “dealbreakers” in there. Like, you can’t be a nice person if you want to own slaves.
And who decides what the “dealbreakers” are? The majority of society? God? Some king? Santa Claus?
™
That men should be given a wife by the state
Ok so while I joke about this subtext in the whole thing - if they actually want that, how the fuck do they expect that to work?
Historically the closest thing to “being given a wife” was a dowry, which in my mind is a stupid term made up for a family selling their daughter.
I imagine something akin to a draft or arranged marriages. You’re not married, you’re not married, congrats you’re now married.
And that just freaking blows my mind. I’ll admit I’m a tall blue eyed WASP male, with some success in my career, so based on their definition of outward appearances dictating good genes, I’d fall into that category of eligible bachelor that Nazi Germany had.
But I fail to see how the wife I would get assigned would be guaranteed to be desirable. For all I know, the state would select a petite 22 year old, blonde hair blue eyed white girl but from bumbfuck middle of nowhere Kentucky who is dumber than rocks and I always have to do everything for her that isn’t cooking or baby making. That’s a fuckload of stupid, Id have nothing in common with her, we’d probably both be lonely as fuck since we’re 12 years apart.
To me, it sounds like their eugenics movement has nothing to do with a master race, and more so with a bunch of men that lack self-awareness and desire an animated sex doll.
I’m sad to report, she probably won’t even be good at cooking.
As a fellow super white human, the amount of brown people siding with the white supremacists, and the amount of women who do the same thing blows my ever loving mind. None of us are safe with those fuckers. They truly don’t understand the danger of what they’re doing
No. They really don’t.
I suspect you have had the similar experience where régime supporters automatically assume you are safe to voice their real opinion around?
They don’t care how evil, gross, or horrible it is. These men talk about women as lesser beings. These men insist on the existence of a natural hierarchy. I’m sure a fair number of minority immigrants would hear their curated rhetoric and say “well yeah” because they had similar ideas from their previous culture. The thing they never realize is that the hierarchy is white men, then white women, then various minority rankings of men (who are seen as a threat) then minority women at the bottom.
And that’s just the surface, because I can’t hold back the statement of “fuck right off” and keep listening how deep their opinions go. Hence why the idea of drafted wives took me by surprise.
A lot of these minorities also always think that they’re different because they’re “one of the good ones” and will reap the same benefits.
The worst kind of person isn’t someone who will defend free speech, it’s someone who does so at first, and then stops defending it when they’re in power.
I think hate speech should have repercussions, but there are lots of thoughts that are hard to explain. A big problem is the upsurge in these types of comics. I think they are not only unhelpful, but detrimental to the cause at hand when pro-Palestine protesters are being labeled “Nazis” and then detained. The problem right now clearly is the state, not the people living under the state, and someone saying a few offensive things, while evil, isn’t as bad as the government being turned into a police state before our eyes, who will gladly shut us up for protesting against them. Stop worrying about the Nazis in universities and start worrying about Nazis about to run the U.S. military.
Did you comment on the wrong post?
No… I think they’re saying that the comic guy who thinks women shouldn’t vote is not as bad as the people in Trump’s cabinet, or something. Which is like… I can care about both pretty easily. Effortlessly, even.
I really hope so, for their sake.
