>>15287>Which is a shame but I can't really blame them.
I can and will. I won't take the blame for whoever was spreading propaganda in 2014 just because I share the site.
Some people just need fringey scum pits to hang out in. The world's overwhelmingly clean and prim and it's stifling to tell yourself you have to live up to that every moment.
>It's more like this stop demonizing it as much until they eventually accept it.
Which is evidence that it wasn't wrong in the first place. If you need an entire society to be constantly guilt-policing itself on a ground level for certain mere suggestions that sprout up again without fail no matter how hard you squelch them, that's not a viral idea taking over your mind that you just weren't vigilant against. It's a basic human behavior that society is actively wasting energy trying to suppress.
>why people develop unrelated beliefs like muslims are generally evil and what to take over the entire world and none of them can be trusted
Y'know, I've witnessed plenty evidence of the notion that a lot of muslims are chill, and seeing them fills me not with fear, but guilt that my cautionary take on the future might eventually make us enemies, which I hope it doesn't. Now there are people who seeing some of the things I believe might assume i'm straight-up in favor of more deportations.
I do feel icky about it all. But I'm also concerned that accepting the inevitability of a culture changing, even from a more secular state to a more religious one, might be a poor choice. Even in the wake of christianity's depreciation, the strain of secular humanism has been a parochial, authoritarian force, that endlessly demands more and more sacrifices from people in the name of its ever tightening ideals, and ostracizes and persecutes its "heretics." I fear only worse still awaits if a truly empassioned religion gains sufficient mass a second time. And am I to deny the pain and tears of those who claimed to see the chaos in Europe? Are they all just white nationalist cells shilling lies and not everyday people showing us what they've suffered through?
I'm not saying I know. I'm saying I don't know. I don't know if you or anyone else knows, either. And I'm not just going to blindly place my trust in Humanism Gang. There's no place for faith in a tumultuous world.
>How exactly is acknowledging something as a problem inherently being an "establishment warrior" unless having opinions about what is bad is not allowed?
I'm in favor of using direct action to police extremely ethnocentric regimes. Not ethnocentric individual actions. If people don't share values with someone they label racist, they can choose not to associate with them. If you're using collective action to target small individuals who aren't all but buying paramilitaries to run the country, you're doing something that's more authoritarian than what they're doing, even if you're not the State.
>Was he really the only one or are you maybe forgetting someone who didn't regard you as a pest either?
GENERAL KENOBI!>>15289>And I've got to say, I've been seeing a very concerning pattern on the internet as a whole, of people interpreting "hey, maybe we shouldn't be saying/doing these things, because they're likely harmful to society" as "hey, maybe we should get big daddy government to systematically slaughter everyone who says/does these things".
Because "harmful to society" is then your framework, not "help, my society is actively oppressing me and I want more freedom from them."
An act of society is an act of group selfishness. You cannot advocate justice for all if you accept society but just try to "improve" it. Society requires individual sacrifice for the organism, you're just redirecting the sacrificial crosshairs elsewhere.
Using "justice" as your starting point can, even if it doesn't necessarily, absolve some people of responsibility for the means used to reach their ends of "justice." And it has, in the past. Justice is problematic because it appeals to the puritan neurotype, which has a great propensity for acting social change with little regard for personal autonomy as we tend to think of it, and have occupied both sides of the conventional political spectrum while using violent States to enforce their ideals by any means necessary.
It doesn't matter if you support justice without using law/violence to get there, because the fundamentally systemic thinking behind "justice" draws those who would
use law like flies to shit. Remember how nationalism and eugenics were both used to justify state coercion around the turn of the last century? Those things both started out as parts of the Progressive movement. Their moral framework was so systemic to begin with that not violating people's "rights" did not occur to them, because justice and progress were all they valued.
I'm not justifying the line of thought that even could potentially be used be egalitarian states to snuff out racists, sorry.
And there is a point at which race jokes do stop being funny. I do admit, I wish we had something more.