Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
This is all true. But again, there are ideological publications everywhere. It seems like the ultra-liberal ones are kept to a higher standard than the ultra-conservative ones.
At the risk of repeating myself, I find the reaction to this more concerning than the article itself. There's almost a visceral anger towards what should be a throw-away article to the point where the reaction is completely out of proportion. It's like jailing someone for jaywalking.
The thing that concerns me the most about this reaction is that it is essentially the same mind-set that is pushing racism, ultra-nationalism and hyper-conservatism into legitimate political discourse all over the world. Look no further than the recent US Presidential election for evidence of this. It's also no coincidence that Breitbart and Infowars are so influential on the Trump administration. I haven't read all the responses here but it wouldn't surprise me if someone threw in a "safe space", "triggered" or "snow flake" reference. These blatant over reactions do exactly what you complained about: it inspires others to do the same and builds on itself.
|
Hm. That is a very interesting point.
I'll admit, I've likely done the very same thing. I think I tend to dismiss a lot of crap out of hand.
I generally look past most of that stuff, but its seemingly becoming more and more mainstream.
The last thing we want is 'Extremes' becoming the Norm.
I wonder why that is. Is it maybe that there is so much input and communication that we as a society have become jaded and only extreme ideas register enough of a response?
I'm not really sure.
For instance, removing rights from one group based exclusively on race is a stupid idea and is sufficiently preposterous to be dismissed out of hand and we dont need to think about it, its been actually done many, many times with fairly disastrous effects.
I guess I see the idea of: What happens if you do it to White Males, the single most influential demographic on the face of the Earth.
But again, it falls on its face. It cant be done. And it shouldnt be done.
So the fact that it might be an interesting theory fails because the basic premise of, again, removing rights based on race, is inherently flawed.