Sure, but “alt-right” means something specific, and I was missing the jump of reason … but this thread has gotten pretty heated, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised people were weirdly upset by what I thought was an innocent question.
Fair enough, political definitions are rarely well-defined.
I guess people often use it to mean the more internet-savvy, meme-posting, trolling right wing.
Yeah, that’s how I understood it… Not really something Eich seems to do much.
I’m not sure why anybod would think it’s not connected.
Just because Eich has awful views doesn’t give license to also be awful by throwing around random other accusations or connecting him with trolling skinheads. Remember, even the Nuremberg Trials had defense attorneys, so let’s stick to the high road of justice, not the shitty cesspool that the far right wants to drag us into.
I’m all for gay rights and advocate for same sex marriage. But if he doesn’t then he’s now boxed in with the skinhead kill-all-the-immigrants crowd? Where’s the nuance?
That said, I don’t really trust Brave the product. It’s pushing its privacy agenda a little too hard for me to trust it.
I don’t like that he supported a campaign against gay marriage. I don’t know his reasons for doing so but it’s probably not one I’d support.
But my understanding extends no further. I know he made a donation. I don’t have the nuance or understanding to extrapolate that into putting him into an entire box
There’s something ironic about tarring him with a broad brush based on one attribute
I’ll absolutely disagree with his action in contributing to taking away same sex marriage. I don’t see why gay people shouldn’t get married.
I don’t know his reason for contributing to it. I’ll very likely disagree with his reason.
What I’m saying is, does that make him alt-right (whatever that even means)? The only thing you can deduce is that he thinks gay people shouldn’t get married
Question is, though, where’s the line? We don’t all come with the same exact moral compass, and we’re all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can’t just say “be a moral and non-bigoted person” and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.
No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it’s arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.
In my experience, anybody who claims morality is “clear cut” is probably naive, otherwise they’re selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
Yes, it’s a philosophical debate. That’s why I’m here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.
Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I’ve said nothing about whether I find Eich’s donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.
This is the first I’ve heard of that proposition so I have no idea. Nor do I know the guy’s feelings on it other than he felt motivated to donate to it
Removed by mod
Sure, but “alt-right” means something specific, and I was missing the jump of reason … but this thread has gotten pretty heated, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised people were weirdly upset by what I thought was an innocent question.
Oh well, it’s the internet, after all.
Removed by mod
Fair enough, political definitions are rarely well-defined.
Yeah, that’s how I understood it… Not really something Eich seems to do much.
Just because Eich has awful views doesn’t give license to also be awful by throwing around random other accusations or connecting him with trolling skinheads. Remember, even the Nuremberg Trials had defense attorneys, so let’s stick to the high road of justice, not the shitty cesspool that the far right wants to drag us into.
Dude sincerely go to hell, you are cataloging people that are not in your political side as an alt-righter.
And this is what’s wrong with politics now
I’m all for gay rights and advocate for same sex marriage. But if he doesn’t then he’s now boxed in with the skinhead kill-all-the-immigrants crowd? Where’s the nuance?
That said, I don’t really trust Brave the product. It’s pushing its privacy agenda a little too hard for me to trust it.
Just use Firefox if you want privacy
deleted by creator
I don’t like that he supported a campaign against gay marriage. I don’t know his reasons for doing so but it’s probably not one I’d support.
But my understanding extends no further. I know he made a donation. I don’t have the nuance or understanding to extrapolate that into putting him into an entire box
There’s something ironic about tarring him with a broad brush based on one attribute
The dude spent $1,000 declaring where he stood on taking someone’s rights away and you’re like meh I don’t wanna jump to judgement here lmao
I’ll absolutely disagree with his action in contributing to taking away same sex marriage. I don’t see why gay people shouldn’t get married.
I don’t know his reason for contributing to it. I’ll very likely disagree with his reason.
What I’m saying is, does that make him alt-right (whatever that even means)? The only thing you can deduce is that he thinks gay people shouldn’t get married
deleted by creator
Isn’t what I said
All I’ve said is you can’t extrapolate “He disagrees with X there for he must also be Y and Z”
deleted by creator
Congrats! You’ve made a formal fallacy while sounding antagonistically patronizing!
I agree, it ought to be a hard line.
Question is, though, where’s the line? We don’t all come with the same exact moral compass, and we’re all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can’t just say “be a moral and non-bigoted person” and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.
No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it’s arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.
I think we can agree that those slave owners were wrong, just as we can agree that Eich was and remains wrong about gay marriage.
deleted by creator
In my experience, anybody who claims morality is “clear cut” is probably naive, otherwise they’re selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
Yes, it’s a philosophical debate. That’s why I’m here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.
deleted by creator
Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I’ve said nothing about whether I find Eich’s donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.
Beware of groupthink. It makes for smooth brains.
deleted by creator
Where was the nuance in Proposition 8?
This is the first I’ve heard of that proposition so I have no idea. Nor do I know the guy’s feelings on it other than he felt motivated to donate to it
If you’re not familiar with Prop 8 then you can’t understand why people judge its supporters, like Eich, as harshly as we do.
deleted by creator
I did realise I had the classic =/
So you’re telling me I should throw my money and data at a guy that doesn’t believe in my human rights?
Removed by mod