The Unvaxinated = the Taliban

[Dill]

(09-05-2021, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had a longer response typed up for this, then my cat jumped on my keyboard and page backed, so my whole response was erased.  I started typing it again when I realized there was little reason to do so.  I've made my point, clearly and logically.  I've provided real world examples.  If you still see no problems with these types of comparisons then there's really nothing more to be said.  I find them divisive and inflammatory, you see the "scholarly" benefit of such examples as outweighing that obvious consequence.  We don't agree and it's obvious that further discussion will not change either of our minds.  So we can leave it at that.

Well, we can't "leave it at that" if your claim is you have provided real world examples.  You have not. 

Also, you have not really addressed the following challenges to your position, as raised in my previous post:

1. Democracies are based upon open discussion of political issues in the public sphere. If discussion were forbidden because people found some topics "inflammatory," then we would be unable to discuss a range of topics from abortion to climate change. At a time when authoritarian politics are plunging the US into a crisis of democracy, it seems especially weak to argue that we should not be discussing historical antecedents because that might "inflame" the authoritarians. The more people who know how democracies die, the less they are likely to agree that protection of authoritarians' feelings trumps the principle of open discussion. 

If your reponse to this point is just to repeat "It just inflames people," then that is not a refutation at all, nor a reason to abandon a fundamental principle of democratic governance, though you may decide to do that regardless.

2. Why, in a democracy, should we suppose "average" citizens are incapable of sorting out public discussion of US politics informed by knowledge of how democracies die? That some cannot is true of all issues, but we don't make that lowered capacity of some the limiting standard of public discussion of any other issue, so why this one, specifically? 

You are in effect asking that we set aside two foundational principles of liberal democracy, to protect the feelings of those who might feel singled out by historical reminders. 

And you are doing so on the basis of anti-democratic principles--i.e., "average" people cannot be trusted to sort out the discussion.

And apparently to protect the feelings of those currently creating our crisis of democracy, who will find such discussion "divisive." 

Final point: the only "real world example" that you have provided is your personal feeling that public discussion/analysis of authoritarian regimes is "divisive and inflammatory."  You provided no links or examples of other people "inflamed" over the principle of political complarison, no videos of enraged parents challenging school boards etc. Lots of people are "inflamed" nowdays, about many things, including myself over the authoritarian turn of the Republican Party. But that is not a reason to stifle informed debate.

You did assert that some unspecified legislation, apparently prompted by critical legal theorists, didn't work because the theorists know theory but not people. Perhaps that is what you mean by a "real world example." If so,that is actually pretty vague, and you are still asking that I simply believe you when you say that you know "people" and theorists don't.  

In any case, LAWS which don't have an intended effect are not a "real world example" of the actual point you are supposedly arguing--namely that increasing public knowledge and discussion of authoritarian politics has some "opposite effect"--which would be what, that people understand LESS about the authoritarian turn in US politics? 

Even if a mistaken law were the right kind of example, and you provided an actually specific instance, it could easily be met by the point that a good deal of legislation actually does have its intended effect. We don't stop passing laws because one or two had the opposite effect.

But if you are re-affirming that you will not address the issues raised by your stance, especially regarding democratic principles, then I am prepared to "leave it at that."