9 ms·

> Playing nice has its reward in the long term. Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been f

by gaur 10y ago

> Playing nice has its reward in the long term. Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. I absolutely will not play nice.

hash-set 10y ago
Gun owners say the same thing--registration leads to confiscation. Somehow, their cries are ignored.
- soylentcola 10y ago
  One, of course, might find a difference between hypothetical banning of something you own and a hypothetical banning of something you are.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    While true, it may still be a reasonable concern if one is of the belief that what they own may offer protection for who they are.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Who on the political spectrum is proposing to deport or murder all gun-owners?
      - Inconel 10y ago
        To my knowledge no one. However, there are people on the political spectrum who would like to curtail or eliminate gun ownership. If you are a gun owner who believes that firearms offer a means of protecting yourself and the government wishes to take away the tool of that protection, I could understand why that may be concerning. I'm not voicing an opinion on this one way or the other, I was mearly stating that I could understand the concern. Perhaps I misunderstood the GP's comment.
  - zepto 10y ago
    One might, but that's only one framing. The idea that a free person has the right to self-defense is based in something you are. For some people, banning the ownership of guns is an attack on who they are. This is true for some people who don't currently own guns as much as those who do.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Gun ownership isn't a religion. Although sometimes its devotees give that impression.
  - zepto 10y ago
    Gun ownership may not be a religion in itself, but the belief in the right to self defense, or to not be criminalized in advance, can certainly flow from religious beliefs.
emblem21 10y ago
The only powerful institution engaging the type of widespread dehumanization that gets people on registries right now is the mainstream media. And it's getting a free pass to do so. I'd proiritize a little better imo.
brightball 10y ago
So here's a perspective on the parent's statement and yours. Being placed on a registry = bad. - Have you supported or opposed gun registration? - Did you support blocking purchase of guns based on your presence on a no fly list? If your answer to either of the above two questions is yes, I'd advise you to strongly consider what drove you to that perspective? If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news. If your answer to those questions was no, then congratulations on logical consistency. Now, in terms of defeating calls and/or support for such a registry to you think it would be better to dismiss the fears that people have and insult them...or to have a civil discussion with them on why it's a bad idea, the constitutional problems it creates, historical outcomes or how it's virtually unenforceable? The above video makes the point that dismissing and insulting rather than playing nice and engaging is exactly the problem. You can be against the registry and still have a civil debate. Slinging insults and avoiding the discussion entirely is the problem. One of my favorite quotes: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald
- keepper 10y ago
  Since we are going to do arguments by quotes.. “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov So, no, sorry, a registration by ownership ( gun/car/fuzzy pink socks ) isn't the same as a registration by Religion. This really should be obvious, but for some reason, it isn't. I really wish I had the answer to that...
  - rublev 10y ago
    What about Registration by Fairytale?
    - keepper 10y ago
      hence my point... I'm tempted to reply harshly but... The first pattern was property ( as well as is used affects others ), the second pattern was a belief or similar ( others not affected ). So, examples. Car/Guns == Public Safety ( other people may be affected, socks was a joke, but you can argue that the buying of something, can be regulated by the seller as he wishes ) Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people... ( plus, some of these you can't change, and should have no bearing.. they are identifiers of people/culture/etc ) Violent Religious/Red Headed Person? We already have other methods/laws for this, it's called Laws against committing other crimes... The Red/Religion is superfluous... I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.. again, the analogy should not be needed ( but it unfortunately is.. )
Animats 10y ago
Remember what happened to the CTO at Mozilla who contributed to the campaign against gay marriage.
- pavlov 10y ago
  Brendan Eich? Yeah, here's what happened to him: he's now the CEO of another corporation. Not exactly the stuff of martyrdom... It's not like his career was ruined. He was simply the wrong person to lead Mozilla. It's important to note that the "campaign against gay marriage" was not just about a future ban, but specifically about the annulment of marriages already registered in California. How would you feel about someone who tried to annul your marriage without ever having met you? To me, that explains why people felt so strongly about his actions.
- gingerrr 10y ago
  What exactly is the point you're trying to make here? First, he was the CEO at the time of the controversy - a much more symbolically important leadership position than CTO. For many companies, their CEO is the face of the company, which makes any controversy much more damaging. Second, he contributed money to a political campaign that was socially unacceptable to a large enough group of people that they made an enormous amount of noise about it. As a result, he stepped down (whether willingly or not behind the scenes, it was publically a willing resignation) because, in his words, "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." [1] Isn't that the way the market is supposed to work? People boycotting Mozilla (i.e. "voting with their feet") led to the corporation responding to its consumers' desires. What's the relation to a state registry based on religion, again? Also, there is a difference between tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and tolerance of open attempts to strip others of rights. The political campaign he funded was very much the latter. -- [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...

by gaur 10y ago

hash-set 10y ago

Gun owners say the same thing--registration leads to confiscation. Somehow, their cries are ignored.

soylentcola 10y ago
One, of course, might find a difference between hypothetical banning of something you own and a hypothetical banning of something you are.
- Inconel 10y ago
  While true, it may still be a reasonable concern if one is of the belief that what they own may offer protection for who they are.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Who on the political spectrum is proposing to deport or murder all gun-owners?
    - Inconel 10y ago
      To my knowledge no one. However, there are people on the political spectrum who would like to curtail or eliminate gun ownership. If you are a gun owner who believes that firearms offer a means of protecting yourself and the government wishes to take away the tool of that protection, I could understand why that may be concerning. I'm not voicing an opinion on this one way or the other, I was mearly stating that I could understand the concern. Perhaps I misunderstood the GP's comment.
- zepto 10y ago
  One might, but that's only one framing. The idea that a free person has the right to self-defense is based in something you are. For some people, banning the ownership of guns is an attack on who they are. This is true for some people who don't currently own guns as much as those who do.
pjc50 10y ago
Gun ownership isn't a religion. Although sometimes its devotees give that impression.
- zepto 10y ago
  Gun ownership may not be a religion in itself, but the belief in the right to self defense, or to not be criminalized in advance, can certainly flow from religious beliefs.

emblem21 10y ago

The only powerful institution engaging the type of widespread dehumanization that gets people on registries right now is the mainstream media. And it's getting a free pass to do so. I'd proiritize a little better imo.

brightball 10y ago

So here's a perspective on the parent's statement and yours. Being placed on a registry = bad. - Have you supported or opposed gun registration? - Did you support blocking purchase of guns based on your presence on a no fly list? If your answer to either of the above two questions is yes, I'd advise you to strongly consider what drove you to that perspective? If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news. If your answer to those questions was no, then congratulations on logical consistency. Now, in terms of defeating calls and/or support for such a registry to you think it would be better to dismiss the fears that people have and insult them...or to have a civil discussion with them on why it's a bad idea, the constitutional problems it creates, historical outcomes or how it's virtually unenforceable? The above video makes the point that dismissing and insulting rather than playing nice and engaging is exactly the problem. You can be against the registry and still have a civil debate. Slinging insults and avoiding the discussion entirely is the problem. One of my favorite quotes: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

keepper 10y ago
Since we are going to do arguments by quotes.. “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov So, no, sorry, a registration by ownership ( gun/car/fuzzy pink socks ) isn't the same as a registration by Religion. This really should be obvious, but for some reason, it isn't. I really wish I had the answer to that...
- rublev 10y ago
  What about Registration by Fairytale?
  - keepper 10y ago
    hence my point... I'm tempted to reply harshly but... The first pattern was property ( as well as is used affects others ), the second pattern was a belief or similar ( others not affected ). So, examples. Car/Guns == Public Safety ( other people may be affected, socks was a joke, but you can argue that the buying of something, can be regulated by the seller as he wishes ) Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people... ( plus, some of these you can't change, and should have no bearing.. they are identifiers of people/culture/etc ) Violent Religious/Red Headed Person? We already have other methods/laws for this, it's called Laws against committing other crimes... The Red/Religion is superfluous... I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.. again, the analogy should not be needed ( but it unfortunately is.. )

Animats 10y ago

Remember what happened to the CTO at Mozilla who contributed to the campaign against gay marriage.

pavlov 10y ago
Brendan Eich? Yeah, here's what happened to him: he's now the CEO of another corporation. Not exactly the stuff of martyrdom... It's not like his career was ruined. He was simply the wrong person to lead Mozilla. It's important to note that the "campaign against gay marriage" was not just about a future ban, but specifically about the annulment of marriages already registered in California. How would you feel about someone who tried to annul your marriage without ever having met you? To me, that explains why people felt so strongly about his actions.
gingerrr 10y ago
What exactly is the point you're trying to make here? First, he was the CEO at the time of the controversy - a much more symbolically important leadership position than CTO. For many companies, their CEO is the face of the company, which makes any controversy much more damaging. Second, he contributed money to a political campaign that was socially unacceptable to a large enough group of people that they made an enormous amount of noise about it. As a result, he stepped down (whether willingly or not behind the scenes, it was publically a willing resignation) because, in his words, "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." [1] Isn't that the way the market is supposed to work? People boycotting Mozilla (i.e. "voting with their feet") led to the corporation responding to its consumers' desires. What's the relation to a state registry based on religion, again? Also, there is a difference between tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and tolerance of open attempts to strip others of rights. The political campaign he funded was very much the latter. -- [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...