• TonyDiGerolamo
    +1
    @eilyra -

    "isn't getting even one person to question their ways in this matter a good thing?"

    Lead by example, not through punishment and self-righteous reaction, I say.

    "but if people continue applying such beliefs while out in the world it may end up harming someone"

    Words are not actions. Unless you're planning to build the Offices of Pre-crime, people are allowed to say what they want.

    "actually committing hate crimes"

    Crimes are crimes. Applying adverbs to them doesn't make them any more or less terrible. Hate crime legislation is the natural extension of people who delude themselves into thinking they can get everyone to think the same. And if validates the world view of bigots that certain groups of people need special protection. I'm all for calm words, if they are calm, but choose your battles. Someone suggested r/imgoingtohellforthis as one of those battles. I say, that's the wrong horse to bet on.

    "if we do manage to get through to even one person doesn't it end up being a positive thing?"

    If you end up validating the world view of dozens of bigots, then no. I've been on the Internet since it's inception and someone changing their opinion on it is an extremely rare thing indeed.

    Yeah, I think calm reasoning can work. But be prepared and patient. You have to turn the other cheek even when it does not. That's something few people hiding behind an avatar can do.

  • eilyra
    +1
    @TonyDiGerolamo -

    Lead by example, not through punishment and self-righteous reaction, I say.

    Agreed, if the situation can be resolved calmly all the better.

    Words are not actions. Unless you're planning to build the Offices of Pre-crime, people are allowed to say what they want.

    Agreed, people are allowed to say what they want.

    Crimes are crimes. Applying adverbs to them doesn't make them any more or less terrible. Hate crime legislation is the natural extension of people who delude themselves into thinking they can get everyone to think the same. And if validates the world view of bigots that certain groups of people need special protection. I'm all for calm words, if they are calm, but choose your battles. Someone suggested r/imgoingtohellforthis as one of those battles. I say, that's the wrong horse to bet on.

    Agreed on the crimes are crimes. I used the adverb merely to indicate that behaviour displayed online may (doesn't necessarily, nor should it assumed does, but may) continue on in real life with more severe consequences in this case and to not accidentally indicate that being racist online may lead to other criminal activities offline. :)

    I actually mostly agree with the whole hate crime legislation point though. There should probably be good enough legal protections anyway so that specific protection isn't necessary. It just may be a easier stop-gap to reach in situations where that isn't true.

    If you end up validating the world view of dozens of bigots, then no. I've been on the Internet since it's inception and someone changing their opinion on it is an extremely rare thing indeed.

    True, guess it all again comes down to approach.

    Yeah, I think calm reasoning can work. But be prepared and patient. You have to turn the other cheek even when it does not. That's something few people hiding behind an avatar can do.

    Hopefully I'm good at that then & able to recognise the times I'm not so I don't engage. Or, well, I think I've got the patience down, preparation I'm less sure about.

  • TonyDiGerolamo
    +2
    @eilyra -

    Good luck!

  • eilyra
    +1
    @TonyDiGerolamo -

    Thanks! Hopefully it ends well and not in insanity. :)

  • TonyDiGerolamo
    +3
    @eilyra -

    If you're going to do that, I'm not sure Red Lantern is an appropriate avatar! :)

  • eilyra
    +3
    @TonyDiGerolamo -

    Oh, Red Lantern isn't my avatar, just the author of the snap we've been discussing in. :) I'm repping Zerg. :D