Freedom of speech and living among diverse sets of people

[ludin]

He is a classic purveyor of the "Gish gallop".

Not at all. He is very informed on the subjects that he talks about.

If you come unarmed then it is not his fault it is yours.

The facts are simply the facts. They don't care if you don't like them. They don't go away simply because you don't like them or refuse to accept them.

 

[NWRatCon]

Do you know what is the conservative position? Your race, what you have or not in between your legs, etc. doesn't matter for how I should treat you and for how the government treats you. They tend to criticize transgender people and homosexuality on religious grounds, but it's one thing to say "here is a list of things that I think make for a better life" and saying that if you don't conform, you must be persecuted. Mainstream conservatives don't support treating people differently depending on the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, etc.

Oh, my friend... That has not been the "mainstream" for decades in conservatism. I know, I used to be one. That went out of fashion with Reagan. We can lament that change, but we must acknowledge it. It is, perhaps, still de rigeur amongst some libertarians (ironically, not Shapiro), but to say that is "conservatism" today is intellectually dishonest, or at least overly nostalgic.

The kind of things the Alt-Right wants are incompatible with freedom.

On this we can agree.

What is the difference between Spencer and people such as Ocasio-Cortez? They disagree on the status of white men relative to other people. Spencer just says "but, you celebrate being black, why can't I celebrate being white?" The problem is that if you agree with the identity politics on the left, you have no reason to encourage segregated group celebrations everywhere except for straight white men. Why don't we host a white pride, straight pride or male pride parade? Because it's racist, homophobic and sexist... Indeed. That's precisely my point. Dividing people up in groups and subgroups IS the essence of discrimination, no matter which group it is.

And there you go of the rails, intellectually. It is clear that you either don't understand or accept the arguments that AOC put forth. I appreciate that, and the "why". It is easier to ignore the substance of the argument and fall back on "principles" (e.g., color blindness) when one can ignore the history and factual reality upon which they are based. "Black Lives Matter" is not based upon a call for superiority or special treatment, but rather an acknowledgment that equal treatment is not the norm and should be. You may be "color blind", but the society we occupy is not.

When people mention "white pride," I feel chills running in my spine. When I read about ideas to have "special" graduation ceremonies only attended by black students in certain colleges, the same thing happens. Chills down the spine.

Put yourself in the position of the others and you may feel differently.

 

[NWRatCon]

What my response illustrates is that Ben Shapiro is not an economist. It doesn't make him a bigot of some sort.

I'm not at all confident one relates to the other. He can both be wrong on economics and be a bigot (which I believe he is). I'm not sure, though, that his bigotry "informs" his ignorance of economics. He's just ignorant of both.

 

[NWRatCon]

I provided responses piecemeal as I caught up to the thread. I've now caught up, so I'd like to make some generalized and more cogent (I hope) points.

First, I agree that reasoned, rational, and polite discourse is the preferable mode of debate and everything should be done to promote that. Sadly, it is not the norm generally, and certainly not here at DP. So I applaud this effort and the points made in that direction.

Second, too much emphasis is placed on viewpoint advocacy and not general rules of civil discourse. Not every conservative point is based upon dishonesty and depravity. Nor, I will add, is every liberal point pure as the driven snow and devoid of emotional bent. Again, as I believe strongly in rational discourse and approaching debate with facts, logic, and substance, one cannot, in my view, excuse misbehavior simply because someone is in the same tribe. In this regard, I will readily acknowledge "both sides do it." This is not the place to talk about "degrees" of misbehavior.

Third, it is frightfully difficult to separate strongly held views from emotional responses, especially when provoked. Some provocations are simply more direct than others.

I have other points, but life is interceding.

 

[TheEconomist]

It is clear that you either don't understand or accept the arguments that AOC put forth. I appreciate that, and the "why". It is easier to ignore the substance of the argument and fall back on "principles" (e.g., color blindness) when one can ignore the history and factual reality upon which they are based.

Before being critical of social justice activists and of their demands, I actually bothered trying to make sense of their claims. Most of those claims rest on real problems that were both widespread and severe in the past. Things generally have improved over time, but the problems did not die out completely. People such as AOC will point this out and make exactly the kind of claim you are making here, invoke existing disparities as a reason to use some force to rectify the problem. Several objections could be raised here. One of them is the difficulty of measuring discrimination because of the pesky problem that not everyone is the same, want the same thing or have the same background. The presumed bias in judgment behind many of the demands made by this group of activists is hard to establish -- and that's if you do it in just one dimension and not many.


As for AOC specifically, she engages in completely dishonest conversational tactics. One rule is you don't get to put words in the mouth of other people. Yet, this summer she released a series of Tweets about "white supremacy," comparing it to some sort of insidious illness that you might carry without knowing it. I already explained this, but do you see the problem with the "dog whistle" and "implicit racism" kind of arguments? It rests on presumptions that cannot be checked, on forces that float in the ether that people like AOC can invoke to attack your character as opposed to addressing your ideas. It's easy to spot the sleight of hand. If "codewords" are being used, it means that the same words have at least two uses. If you don't tell me how to distinguish between a nonracist guy who says that diversity of thought is important to mean that diversity of thought is important and a racist guy who says the same thing as a diversion, or as an excuse to slip in racist ideas, it means you're full of it. It's a game of "heads you win and tail I loose" where AOC is allowed to throw the racist card on the fly with no justification.


Of course, if someone else talks about some form of hidden discrimination, but they have clear criteria that do not lead to conclude everyone who uses certain words are bigots, it's a whole different story. But that's not what AOC and other social justice activists are selling. My main problem, in other words, is with people who try to find ways to not let everyone speak their minds -- and AOC is one such person.

Just think for a minute. If you talked with Ben Shapiro about discrimination, will he get enraged and threaten you? Now, if you try to talk about wage differentials and mention, say, research on psychological differences between men and women, how is that going to go? It doesn't need to become an all-out war, but someone people read things "research suggests women aren't like men" and they think you're repeating nonsense from the 1950s. Steven Pinker (of all people) has an entire book solely dedicated to the nonsense of scientific denial among exactly the people I am criticizing, for exactly the reasons I raised. It's called the Blank Slate.

"Black Lives Matter" is not based upon a call for superiority or special treatment, but rather an acknowledgment that equal treatment is not the norm and should be. You may be "color blind", but the society we occupy is not.

I am aware of what the movement was intended to do. We don't have a disagreement over the existence of racism in the United States, though we might have a disagreement over its scope.

 

[TheEconomist]

I'm not at all confident one relates to the other. He can both be wrong on economics and be a bigot (which I believe he is). I'm not sure, though, that his bigotry "informs" his ignorance of economics. He's just ignorant of both.

Ben Shapiro isn't especially ignorant of economics. His points about the minimum wage can be made without too much cherry-picking and it concerns a debatable issue. He doesn't misuse the simple model he invokes either. I think he's wrong, but he wouldn't fail ECON101 for lack of understanding. I cannot say the same thing about many journalists who tried to criticize DSGE models without knowing anything about them.

As for the comment on bigotry, I think it's largely unfair, though you are entitled to your opinion. I've watched a lot of his material and he is too polite for me to call him a bigot. The example I gave earlier was that of how he presents his views on transgender people. The only thing he doesn't do is say that a man can be a woman. Most people on the left view this as a sort of call to marginalize trans people, even though he makes it explicitly clear that's not what he means to do. In his eyes, transitioning isn't going to help those people and encouraging them to do it without restraint isn't helpful either. Yet, if you ask him who should choose, he's going to tell you the person concerned. It's not up to you, up to me, up to Ben or up to the government. It's up to the individual.


Again, you can think whatever you want, but I think you place the bar too low for bigotry. More to the point, unlike the people who hate Ben Shapiro, Ben Shapiro actually gives them the opportunity to talk in public in front of a captive audience -- that's why I brought him up in the first place.

Now, how about we let Ben Shapiro behind? The thread should center on freedom of speech and he's just one example I picked -- and it was mostly because of his open microphone policy. I also mentioned Bill Maher if you prefer. I watched his show many times and still sometimes do. I do not especially appreciate the Trump Derangement Syndrome, but one thing I love about Bill Maher is that he invites everyone. Even if most of his guests are on the liberal side, he invited a lot of controversial conservatives over the years.

Otherwise, we can also think about Dave Rubin or Denis Prager. I like them for the same reason I like Shapiro and Maher: they let people talk.

 

[Lisa]

The left's antics are backfiring. When they attack black women like Candice Owen's and other minorities like shapiro they only shoot their arguments of tolerance and inclusiveness in their head.

Candice Owens doesn't get a pass because of her skin color, no matter how hard you try to use minority mouthpieces as an excuse for conservative ideas.

She isnt getting attacked for her skin color but on;ly what she is saying.

 

[Lisa]

As soon as I saw the word "all" I knew you were about to express something that is not true.

For someone who prides himself on being able to articulate a cogent argument, why would you make such a stupid mistake?

BYU, Liberty, Westmont, Baylor, TCU, Loma Linda, Pepperdine, Oral Roberts ... shall I go on? There are literally dozens of examples that demonstrate your thesis is wrong.

Of course, you might want to argue that all these campuses are hotbeds of liberal indoctrination. Maybe that's what you ought to do.

Most of the people making this argument that all colleges are liberal have never spent a semester on campus.

My daughter attended a conservative Christian campus.

 

[Lisa]

You don't know what a strawman is but you do it frequently. Most leftist do because they can't argue the point or dispute facts.

A strawman is where you slightly redefine each of your opponent's arguments or ideas with the goal of creating a false argument that is much easier to demolish or refute.

Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy (video) |
Khan Academy

 

[Crusader13]

Here is a way that perhaps everyone...

The criterion proposed by some people on the left for limiting speech in public requires us to think about how marginalized group might feel when exposed to certain ideas and, sometimes, to also take stock of how radical groups might use certain ideas as an excuse to engage in violence even when we did not condone that violence. In practice, campuses are dominated by left-leaning people so this means people on the left effectively decide what is appropriate and inappropriate speech based on emotions, anticipated reactions and perhaps even on the presumed intentions of the speaker. In all those cases, I must remind you that you observe none of that. You infer emotions and intentions from body language and verbal expressions and you have to make a forecast about radicalized groups of people to judge how ideas might affect them. So any argument here is bound to involve questions of judgments and not just matters of fact -- so, it's really a sort of discretionary power.

The problem I invite to contemplate is "why should conservatives trust people like you?"

To answer this question, try to put yourself in a different world. Say that instead of left-leaning groups having the upper hand on campuses, campuses are dominated by Christian fundamentalists. They decide what can be said or not said. Suppose that some courses in geology, climate science, biology, and sexuality will be canceled because they conflict with a fundamentalist view of biblical scripture. Suppose that activists supporting gay marriage are being banned from campus and that riots erupt every time someone tries to support gay marriage even when they do it on the libertarian grounds of "live and let live." The administration and far-right students argue that LGBT-advocacy groups don't really want the freedom they claim, that they have a hidden agenda to destroy America and want children to suffer.

The question is: can you think of any reason you could give to those fundamentalists that they might accept so that they do not use that power?


My answer to this conundrum is very simple. There are three possibilities: (1) they decide how to censor, (2) you decide how to censor and (3) censorship only applies to cases that you would both ban. (1) is unacceptable to you and (2) is unacceptable to them. The only middle ground is to limit bans to obvious no-noes like displays of child pornography and outright invitations to attack groups of people. In that world, there is no way a leftist would just shut up, not be mad at fundamentalists and not call for diversity of opinions. Just like conservatives do not trust that left-leaning people are fair when they label people as hateful, left-leaning people wouldn't trust that conservatives would be fair if they got to make the same kind of choices. What on Earth gives you the right, then, to do to others what you would never accept that they do to you? The happenstance fact that you happen to have a lot of support in academia and the media doesn't give you the right to decide on behalf of everyone what can be said and heard. If the fundamentalist prescription is unbearable to you, you understand exactly how some conservatives feel. They feel like their views will be misrepresented, that they will be attributed intentions they never had and that there might be no difference between the category "hate" and the category "what leftists disagree with." Which is exactly how you would feel if religious rightwing groups were policing speech instead of leftwing groups.

So, instead of being so liberal with labeling things as "hate speech," maybe you should do a little more of what you say you support. Draw a bigger circle that includes everyone. Find some common ground. Extend the hand nobody seems to be willing to extend. That actually could change a few minds, conquer a few hearts and make the world a better place. It also requires courage -- serious, real courage. Right now, you have no Klansmen to attack over lynching that no longer happens. However, you have sadistic mobs ruining the lives of people over frivolous issues. If you're looking for a dragon to slay, how about this one?

You are right about everything but I feel like you're wasting your time. Lefties know what you're saying is true. You don't need to teach them about the value of free speech and diversity of ideas. They know these things are essential for a free society. The problem is, they don't want a free society. They want total and unconditional power to hand out rights and restrictions selectively to whomever they want. This is their end goal. There is no free America with the new Left in charge. You are seeing that in this very thread. Not only an open admission by Lisa that she wants to ban non-conforming speakers, but that they should be violently bashed to learn their lesson.

 

[FinnFox]

Otherwise, we can also think about Dave Rubin or Denis Prager. I like them for the same reason I like Shapiro and Maher: they let people talk.

Dave Rubin shines when he's in Joe Rogan show.



Mostly flawless performance from Dave Rubin^^

I need to do some digging and find out if Dave is smart guy or not - I'm going to collide with some evidence, but now I'm heading to bed...

 

[Wings]

Dave Rubin shines when he's in Joe Rogan show.



Mostly flawless performance from Dave Rubin^^

I need to do some digging and find out if Dave is smart guy or not - I'm going to collide with some evidence, but now I'm heading to bed...

Rubin is just a normal dude staring the painfully obvious. Same with Peterson, Harris et al.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NWRatCon]

This is going to take a bit of unpacking, so I hope you don't mind if I do a bit of rearranging to keep my points in order.

I am aware of what the movement was intended to do. We don't have a disagreement over the existence of racism in the United States, though we might have a disagreement over its scope.

Before being critical of social justice activists and of their demands, I actually bothered trying to make sense of their claims. Most of those claims rest on real problems that were both widespread and severe in the past.

I believe it is important to start with where we agree. I completely agree with these statements. So, we are starting on equal footing here.

Things generally have improved over time, but the problems did not die out completely. People such as AOC will point this out and make exactly the kind of claim you are making here, invoke existing disparities as a reason to use some force to rectify the problem.

So far, again, we are in agreement.... but here we begin to diverge:

Several objections could be raised here. One of them is the difficulty of measuring discrimination because of the pesky problem that not everyone is the same, want the same thing or have the same background. The presumed bias in judgment behind many of the demands made by this group of activists is hard to establish -- and that's if you do it in just one dimension and not many.

I don't think that there is really much difficulty at all establishing the continuing disparity on multiple parameters. Without jumping into the weeds, I can name a few: wealth disparity, health disparity, income disparity, justice disparity - all of which I can establish as general propositions with significant studies and multiple data points. Where I think that you are deviating from a rational basis is insisting that this is based upon "everyone is the same, want the same thing or have the same background". I don't think that is at all the argument (except in so much as everyone wants the same thing regarding a level playing field). It is important, I think, when addressing these concerns to assiduously avoid conflating general conditions with anecdotal circumstances, which is where your argument leans. It can be entirely true that some individuals in a group "beat the odds" and gain success despite conditions and be equally true that the majority, indeed the vast majority, fail to do so. Is 20% overlap in success sufficient? 50%? How about 5%?

The reality, I think, is that while things have "improved over time" - that time span is measured in centuries, and the improvement, overall, is very limited.

As for AOC specifically, she engages in completely dishonest conversational tactics. One rule is you don't get to put words in the mouth of other people. Yet, this summer she released a series of Tweets about "white supremacy," comparing it to some sort of insidious illness that you might carry without knowing it. I already explained this, but do you see the problem with the "dog whistle" and "implicit racism" kind of arguments? It rests on presumptions that cannot be checked, on forces that float in the ether that people like AOC can invoke to attack your character as opposed to addressing your ideas. It's easy to spot the sleight of hand. If "codewords" are being used, it means that the same words have at least two uses. If you don't tell me how to distinguish between a nonracist guy who says that diversity of thought is important to mean that diversity of thought is important and a racist guy who says the same thing as a diversion, or as an excuse to slip in racist ideas, it means you're full of it. It's a game of "heads you win and tail I loose" where AOC is allowed to throw the racist card on the fly with no justification.

I am quite disappointed in this entire paragraph as it is extremely disingenuous, inaccurate, and based upon preconceived notions, not the facts. Frankly, I think it beneath you.

Of course, if someone else talks about some form of hidden discrimination, but they have clear criteria that do not lead to conclude everyone who uses certain words are bigots, it's a whole different story. But that's not what AOC and other social justice activists are selling. My main problem, in other words, is with people who try to find ways to not let everyone speak their minds -- and AOC is one such person.

We'll continue to disagree on this one, and your position is not only not well taken, it is erroneous and displays quite clearly a prejudicial bias.

 

[NWRatCon]

Just think for a minute. If you talked with Ben Shapiro about discrimination, will he get enraged and threaten you? Now, if you try to talk about wage differentials and mention, say, research on psychological differences between men and women, how is that going to go? It doesn't need to become an all-out war, but someone people read things "research suggests women aren't like men" and they think you're repeating nonsense from the 1950s. Steven Pinker (of all people) has an entire book solely dedicated to the nonsense of scientific denial among exactly the people I am criticizing, for exactly the reasons I raised. It's called the Blank Slate.

I might look at that. I am neither a detractor or advocate for Ben Shapiro. I was exposed to some of his "so called" rational responses and was so turned off by his inherent bigotry I have avoided further exposure. I frankly care nothing for him or about him. Which brings us to the next point:

Ben Shapiro isn't especially ignorant of economics. His points about the minimum wage can be made without too much cherry-picking and it concerns a debatable issue. He doesn't misuse the simple model he invokes either. I think he's wrong, but he wouldn't fail ECON101 for lack of understanding. I cannot say the same thing about many journalists who tried to criticize DSGE models without knowing anything about them.

I have no comment on that for the same reasons.

As for the comment on bigotry, I think it's largely unfair, though you are entitled to your opinion. I've watched a lot of his material and he is too polite for me to call him a bigot.

I have to interject here. Bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." I would expand that to "conditions". It has nothing to do with politesse. Bigotry is prejudice - "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." His positions are definitionally prejudice with regard to gender, race, and sexual orientation. He may not be overtly antagonistic, but that does not excuse the underlying bigotry.

Now, how about we let Ben Shapiro behind? The thread should center on freedom of speech and he's just one example I picked -- and it was mostly because of his open microphone policy. I also mentioned Bill Maher if you prefer. I watched his show many times and still sometimes do. I do not especially appreciate the Trump Derangement Syndrome, but one thing I love about Bill Maher is that he invites everyone. Even if most of his guests are on the liberal side, he invited a lot of controversial conservatives over the years.

Otherwise, we can also think about Dave Rubin or Denis Prager. I like them for the same reason I like Shapiro and Maher: they let people talk.

I don't necessarily agree with your exemplars - I'd put Smerconish up as a better example - but I agree we should leave them behind and talk about the principle rather than get into disputations about the individuals.

 

[TheEconomist]

I have to interject here. Bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." I would expand that to "conditions". It has nothing to do with politesse. Bigotry is prejudice - "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." His positions are definitionally prejudice with regard to gender, race, and sexual orientation. He may not be overtly antagonistic, but that does not excuse the underlying bigotry.

Let me take this as a starting point to pinpoint what I think is a problem. Tolerance of different points of view does not mean agreement, nor approval. It means letting people express themselves, presumably with a genuine attempt at engaging the arguments people make as opposed to falling back on personal attacks. Now, ask yourself this question very seriously:

Is there any way a religious person could consider homosexuality sinful without you considering them to be bigotted?

Here, we should be charitable and assume that the hypothetical religious person involved here believes that homosexuality is a sin. However, they insist on it being a personal choice and on not interfering. If their opinions are requested in a discussion, they will state it, but they will not otherwise interfere in your life and they will never treat you as anything less than a person. If it conflicts too much with your view of religious people, you can imagine that I talking about someone who is unusually morally upstanding.

Now, here is the point of that game. Many conservatives believe that when concepts such as "bigotry" or "hate speech" are being expressed, they are synonymous with the disagreement of the left. I'm sure it's somewhat of an exaggeration, though I have seen enough people make use of insults frivolously to target conservatives (and get away with it) to suspect it might not be entirely false. If you cannot find anything our hypothetical religious person could do, or say that would allow them to condemn homosexuality without being considered bigotted in spite of having picked the softest religious person I could imagine, then you argue that some aspects of religiosity, conservatism, and bigotry are one and the same thing. If, on the other hand, you manage to find some line between tolerance and approbation, between bigotry and disagreement, then you agree with conservatives that you can legitimately disagree on issues as deeply personal as sexuality and have a very civil discussion over it.


My answer:
Although I do not see any particular reason to condemn homosexuality myself, I do understand that tolerance and approbation are different. The first word says something about what you do not do. Tolerating differences is a fancy way to say "live and let live." It doesn't mean you like what other people do, or that you think anyone should be doing it. In fact, you might strongly object to it and still be tolerant. For religious people, scripture and traditions carry with them wisdom about how to best live your life. The morals behind stories that we bothered dragging with ourselves for millennia are not without their reasons to be compelling. One of them is that it survived for so long and tackles aspects of our human experience that didn't change much. Some people drag from it that homosexuality should not be pursued and I am not ready to call this completely prejudicial.

The line I trace between a religious bigot and a religious person isn't a political line. If you thought through the view presented in your scripture about family, marriage, and sexuality, and if you bother discussing those views with people who have firsthand experience, I cannot call that prejudice because you took the time to dig. I wouldn't say that my approbation of homosexuality as a legitimate way to conduct one's life is less prejudiced than the view of many people who disapprove of it. At the moral level, the overriding criterion in that case for me is that I couldn't imagine myself not being with a woman, so I don't see how we could demand the equivalent on their part. However, that's just an intuition. All the people I mentioned have much more to say than I do about this, so how are they more bigotted than me?

 

[TheEconomist]

I also wanted to share a few personal details about some of the people I mentioned that might give some people pause. I only mention this because I believe it is a teachable moment.

I did not point this out earlier, but Dave Rubin is homosexual -- and married if I am not mistaken. It's relevant because he actually said he spends time with Ben Shapiro outside the air, every now and then. He actually said he considers him a friend. Denis Prager also has personal ties with some people who happen to be homosexual. Here, it's very special because he is the godfather to the child of a married gay couple.


Apparently, those homosexuals believe that not only can you get along with those very religious conservatives, but you can even want to have them participating actively in your life. If you believed the accounts given in this thread, this doesn't sound like an especially likely outcome, unless perhaps there is some exaggeration at play. Moreover, these are also people who often take a minute to point out that politics isn't everything. For them, disagreements over ethical, social and political problems stop being part of the conversation and they move on to do something else. It might help to get along with all types of people when you aren't obsessed 24/7 with what makes you different or do not bother turning everything into a fight.

I like the contrast of how those people actually treat different people with how other people handle that same issue. A gay activist decided to write an extensive piece whose title I cannot recall explaining how Peter Thiel (who is homosexual) wasn't in fact gay because he endorsed a more conservative view... The word that comes to mind is ex-communication. This is so common nowadays as to have prompted Obama to call it a circular firing squad. In that world view, it seems, everything is political.

 

[Crusader13]

I like the contrast of how those people actually treat different people with how other people handle that same issue. A gay activist decided to write an extensive piece whose title I cannot recall explaining how Peter Thiel (who is homosexual) wasn't in fact gay because he endorsed a more conservative view... The word that comes to mind is ex-communication. This is so common nowadays as to have prompted Obama to call it a circular firing squad. In that world view, it seems, everything is political.

This is the way of the Left. Democrats have pushed a heinous lie that they are all for gays, blacks, women, Muslims etc...but they fail to leave out the disclaimer. A person from one of these groups is only eligible for protection if they vote or think Left. Otherwise, they get thrown down to the pits with the other heretics.

It's the Democrats who are Islamophobic, homophobic, and racist. They are so afraid that these people will think or act independently that they do everything possible to drive them towards uniformity. They can't even fathom the idea of a gay person drawing their own conclusions. That's true homophobia. Not only that, they've exploited the struggles and tribulations of the gay community for political gain. Shameful.

 

[Craig234]

If their opinions are requested in a discussion, they will state it, but they will not otherwise interfere in your life and they will never treat you as anything less than a person.

So, they won't vote for laws denying marriage to gay people and allowing gay people to be fired for being gay? Or for our entire history until the Supreme Court struck it down this century, criminalizing gay sex?

 

[NWRatCon]

Is there any way a religious person could consider homosexuality sinful without you considering them to be bigotted?

Simple: No. As I previously stated, bigotry is prejudice - "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." A "received position" does not obviate the bigotry. That the basis for their bigotry is a "religious proscription" does not make the attitude any less bigoted.

Here, we should be charitable and assume that the hypothetical religious person involved here believes that homosexuality is a sin. [You can choose to be charitable. I don't think it a requirement that I accept your acceptance.] However, they insist on it being a personal choice and on not interfering. If their opinions are requested in a discussion, they will state it, but they will not otherwise interfere in your life and they will never treat you as anything less than a person. If it conflicts too much with your view of religious people, you can imagine that I talking about someone who is unusually morally upstanding.

I think it is important to acknowledge a difference between bigotry, which is an attitude or belief; and discrimination, which is an activity based upon that attitude. One can be a bigot without acting upon it. In that circumstance, I would applaud the benign behavior that you posit, but it is, I am afraid, not the norm. I can cite a dozen laws that put the lie to the prospect.

Now, here is the point of that game. Many conservatives believe that when concepts such as "bigotry" or "hate speech" are being expressed, they are synonymous with the disagreement of the left. [I'm not sure how to parse that sentence.] I'm sure it's somewhat of an exaggeration, though I have seen enough people make use of insults frivolously to target conservatives (and get away with it) to suspect it might not be entirely false. [How much time have you spent on this forum - or indeed in this thread. THE VAST MAJORITY of such insults come not from the left, but the right.] If you cannot find anything our hypothetical religious person could do, or say that would allow them to condemn homosexuality without being considered bigotted in spite of having picked the softest religious person I could imagine, then you argue that some aspects of religiosity, conservatism, and bigotry are one and the same thing. [Yes, I would argue that. It is practically a tautology.] If, on the other hand, you manage to find some line between tolerance and approbation, between bigotry and disagreement, then you agree with conservatives that you can legitimately disagree on issues as deeply personal as sexuality and have a very civil discussion over it.

I can have a civil discussion about it, but I cannot pretend something is not what it is. Again, just because one does not act upon their prejudice does not excuse it, or eliminate it. Indeed, it is almost axiomatic that having that opinion is, in fact, sinning merely by omission rather than commission. I cannot give them a pass just because they haven't been "active" in their prejudice.

 

[Nap]

So, they won't vote for laws denying marriage to gay people and allowing gay people to be fired for being gay? Or for our entire history until the Supreme Court struck it down this century, criminalizing gay sex?

You understand that there are millions of people that believe homosexuality is a sin and yet still support same sex marriage or decriminalization of gay sex.

Adultery is widely considered to be a sin, however I have never heard of anyone that wishes to criminalize it.

 

[Nap]

So, they won't vote for laws denying marriage to gay people and allowing gay people to be fired for being gay? Or for our entire history until the Supreme Court struck it down this century, criminalizing gay sex?

You understand that there are millions of people that believe homosexuality is a sin and yet still support same sex marriage or decriminalization of gay sex.

Adultery is widely considered to be a sin, however I have never heard of anyone that wishes to criminalize it.

 

[NWRatCon]

My answer:
Although I do not see any particular reason to condemn homosexuality myself, I do understand that tolerance and approbation are different. The first word says something about what you do not do. Tolerating differences is a fancy way to say "live and let live." It doesn't mean you like what other people do, or that you think anyone should be doing it. In fact, you might strongly object to it and still be tolerant. For religious people, scripture and traditions carry with them wisdom about how to best live your life. The morals behind stories that we bothered dragging with ourselves for millennia are not without their reasons to be compelling. One of them is that it survived for so long and tackles aspects of our human experience that didn't change much. Some people drag from it that homosexuality should not be pursued and I am not ready to call this completely prejudicial. [I am. Without delving too much into the religious aspects of it, there are faults to this logic. The most compelling, I think, is the idea that "because it has survived so long" gives it gravitas. Slavery existed for millennia. There are some that still believe that it should be given deference because of this.]

The line I trace between a religious bigot and a religious person isn't a political line. If you thought through the view presented in your scripture about family, marriage, and sexuality, and if you bother discussing those views with people who have firsthand experience, I cannot call that prejudice because you took the time to dig. I wouldn't say that my approbation of homosexuality as a legitimate way to conduct one's life is less prejudiced than the view of many people who disapprove of it. [I'd suggest that it is not "prejudiced" at all. It is merely acceptance and tolerance.] At the moral level, the overriding criterion in that case for me is that I couldn't imagine myself not being with a woman, so I don't see how we could demand the equivalent on their part. However, that's just an intuition. All the people I mentioned have much more to say than I do about this, so how are they more bigotted than me?

I am a confirmed heterosexual. That condition does not prevent me from being tolerant of homosexuality, bisexuality or anything else. Not being black does not prevent me from being sympathetic to the conditions that are suffered by that population simply as a result of birth with higher concentrations of melanin.

 

[TheParser]

If you want an example, think about a new editor that was added to the New York Times team back in 2018. She wrote comments about killing and hating "white men" on her Twitter feed and, as predictably as the sun rises in the morning, radicals swoop in to explain that phrases involving explicit imagery of "white" genocide aren't really calling for violence.

Wow!

What a foolish individual that "new editor" is!

Her great-grandchildren will have, I have no doubt, a totally different point of view.

 

[ludin]

Candice Owens doesn't get a pass because of her skin color, no matter how hard you try to use minority mouthpieces as an excuse for conservative ideas.

She isnt getting attacked for her skin color but on;ly what she is saying.

If candice Owen's was a black democrat you would be calling everyone that attacked her the way you attack her racist and bigots.

The fact she is a strong black conservative female though changes that narrative for you and you now want to excuse those attacks simply because she is a strong black conservative.

Sorry but it doesn't work that way. The liberals that attack her and other minorities like shapiro are just as racist and bigoted as they would argue if they were liberal.

Sorry you don't to change the narrative simply because she is conservative. So why do you support racism and bigotry against minority people?

I mean you compared Shapiro an orthodox jew to a nazi. Shapiro was the number one target of alt-right and white supremacists in 2018. You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[ludin]

A strawman is where you slightly redefine each of your opponent's arguments or ideas with the goal of creating a false argument that is much easier to demolish or refute.

Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy (video) |
Khan Academy

Now that you know what a strawman is you can stop doing it. Shapiro does not strawman people.
However the people that attempt to debate him constantly do that. Why?

Liberals can never address the facts or the actual argument.

Every leftist I know follows the same logic lines in a discussion.

1. Make a claim that is based in an appeal to emotion.
2. Ignore the counter point that is based in facts that proves the appeal wrong.
3. Create a strawman argument and misquote what the person said.
4. After that fails ad hominem the person when they don't fall for the strawman argument.