I'm a little behind on reading @interfluidity and I just bumped into this remarkable prose.
Yes, this is what it's about, the #broligarchy and the #christofacists be damned.
https://drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/11/04/the-coveted-interfluidity-endorsement/index.html
@oliversampson @interfluidity I actually disagree. Should we care about the values and interests of murderers, child abusers, rapists, and neonazis?
@light @oliversampson Should we care about the values and interests of sinners? When you curdle a human being into a noun, you obscure the human, but even humans who have done hateful things — to some degree all of us — still count. That doesn’t mean we have to collectively agree. A murderer might argue we should not punish him because reasons. We might hear him out and punish him anyway. But we owe him, like everyone else, a genuine hearing. 1/
@interfluidity @oliversampson I didn't think OP meant justice stuff
@interfluidity @oliversampson I thought he was saying we should "let other people's values and interests have equal play in our minds" I.e. consider them equal to our own, not merely to give them a fair hearing.
@interfluidity @oliversampson Just out of curiosity though, how would you give a fair hearing to an idea such as "the Holocaust never happened, but it should have"?
I can't think of a way without severely compromising my morals.
@light @oliversampson I give it a fair hearing and reject it. Some of “fair” when discussing things to which I have no first hand access is necessarily deciding whom to trust. So, though I can’t personally refute every proposition offered by obsessive holocaust denialists doesn’t mean I have to accept his claims over those of others I find trustworthy. The “should have” claim I’d find very easy to reject.
@interfluidity @oliversampson I only meant the "should have" claim. The "never happened" claim is non-moral and therefore irrelevant.
@light @oliversampson there are lots of claims that it’s worth trying to understand where they come from even as the vast majority of us will (and should) easily reject them.
@interfluidity @oliversampson Maybe in the sense that there should be people who do that, but not everyone. Some people with fragile minds only suffer dealing with such reprobates.
I don't think society should be one giant and vicious argument. It would be great if people were more willing to hear people out sometimes, but I don't think it is an obligation in this case.
@light @interfluidity I meant that the #broligarchy and the #christofascists main tool is to try to get us to forget the others' humanity.
@light @oliversampson And, like all of us, he has values beyond his sin. His perspective on land use or taxation or food safety is not rendered worthless because of his sin. He owes what our justice system deems him to owe, but he remains a human being, not an object or a nullity. /fin
@interfluidity @oliversampson I meant on matters relating to his sin