Seems we're already getting a bit heated, as neither you nor I mentioned something about "wholesomeness" but here we are.
My point is not that alt-right opinions are wholesome, but rather that since they don't have a lot of places they can write their opinions without getting overrun by opposition, it's only natural they'll retract into properties where they can freely talk.
For example: If you're of the opinion that you don't think homosexuality should be legal, there is not a lot of places you could have a factual conversation about that with others, without it ending up in name-calling or huge troll wars.
Now I don't agree with that opinion at all (I'm bixsexual myself), but I do agree with the right for those people to hold that opinion and being able to talk with others about this opinion, without it ending up in huge fights and drama.
Guess I'm just so far in the "We can educate everyone" camp that the alternatives all seem so fucked up. Hiding people away in separate social medias just make things worse, and all this because people can't ignore others, they _have_ to say something.
Just as a quick reminder before people continue the discussion, from the guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Saying homosexuality shouldn’t be legal isn’t an opinion, it’s bigotry. Viewpoints that infringe on a persons rights are not opinions, it’s discrimination. I agree people should be able to speak freely but I also believe in standards. To take another example, if somebody has the “opinion” that women shouldn’t be able to refuse their husbands sexual advances, is this discussion that is acceptable or is it bigotry? Should people be able to openly discuss their “opinion” that adults should be able to have sex with minors? What if their opinion is that they should be allowed to kill homosexuals? There is a line. Idealism only goes so far.
Russia even created new 'anti gay propaganda' laws recently, after allowing gay relations in 1993, so it's not even a 'it takes time to reach this stage' cultural milestone.
But even though I think we can both agree that LGBT rights are a good thing, you have to remember that all the advances that we saw on this front is precisely because LGBT people crossed 'the line' of acceptability of their time.
And they had to fight people that had the exact same kind of reaction against free speech.
"Saying homosexuality should be legal isn’t an opinion, it’s heresy."
Understanding the futility of policing bad ideas or "wrong" ideas is capableweb's point. Whether or not society deems the idea as wrong or immoral reprehensible ect. the utterance of the words being judged as tantamount to the immoral act itself has shown to not be very helpful.
This shift has ever expanded the militarized zone of topics one can't even discuss and all for what purpose? It seems like the enclaves of bad and dangerous ideas now insulated from the very influence of better information. It this not just the worst of both worlds?
Opinions based on bigotry or reducing rights or "legalness" of a person based off of who they love, what skin color they have, what gender they have are all invalid opinions. I should not have to debate a bigot and act like their views are worth debating.
Opinions cannot be "invalid", just like a persons taste cannot be invalid.
You don't have to debate, just don't engage and problem solved. Others are interested in discussions even around subjects they don't agree on, let us continue being able to use the internet for those discussions.
Explain to me how thinking someone is lesser based off of who they love, what skin color they have, what gender they were born with or identify as is a valid opinion. Treating human beings as lesser for being themselves is an invalid opinion and not something worth debating the merits of.
You seem to be thinking that tolerating bigotry is acceptable because the bigot who wants to infringe on other human beings basic rights is a valid opinion. It is not. Please read on the paradox of tolerance, because tolerating intolerance breeds intolerance and allows intolerance to take over from the tolerant.
Bigots do not deserve fair debate. Any opinion that is based off of infringing on others rights based off sex, gender, or skin color is invalid.
> Explain to me how thinking someone is lesser based off of who they love, what skin color they have, what gender they were born with or identify as is a valid opinion
"noun: opinion; a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
Even if I disagree with the statement "The earth is flat", I cannot lie and say it's not an opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it. By invalidating peoples opinion by flat out saying "Your opinion is invalid", you miss any chance of having an honest conversation with them, maybe with a small chance of helping them understand a perspective they haven't considered before.
> Bigots do not deserve fair debate. Any opinion that is based off of infringing on others rights based off sex, gender, or skin color is invalid.
Let's say our conversation here was 40 years ago. Then with your mindset, "homosexuality should be illegal" would be what you would argue for, since that was the normally accepted opinion at the time. If I was to try to raise that conversation with you, you would have responded with "that's not a valid opinion, because I disagree so much with you". I'm saying, no matter how outlandish someones opinion sounds on the surface, it's always worth talking about, as otherwise we will never have any change in a good direction.
I urge you to look at the paradox of tolerance. Tolerating intolerance breeds intolerance. If I am intolerant of intolerant people then that is good. Bigots do not deserve to be tolerated, do not deserve to have their opinion debated, do not deserve to be taken seriously and do deserve backlash for being a bigot.
Calling people bigots without firstly discussing the view point makes you bigoted as it makes it seem like everything is black and white without any greys.
A lot of right leaning libertarians like Larry Elder for example believe that the federal government shouldn’t legalize gay marriage because the federal government should get out of societal issues all together- not just gay marriage, even straight marriage and other societal issues like abortion, what bulbs to use etc. Societal issues should be dealt at the local county/city/state level, not federal level as he founders intended it to be. This is also why right leaning libertarians oppose weed being illegal. Federal government should get out of that business all together.
So when Larry says he’s against legalizing gay marriage, those who don’t understand nuance ignore the rest of his comment and call him a bigot.
I can quote several other examples and many anecdotal ones too but I think this example is good enough.
> I do agree with the right for those people to hold that opinion and being able to talk with others about this opinion, without it ending up in huge fights and drama.
When one has the "opinion" that a group of people should be locked up for simply being who they are, then yes you should expect some backlash for that.
Since you are of a very black & white impression of a large swaths of people, I'm assuming you're in the same boat as me.