Jerry Falwell Dead

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
When I was 10 years old I built a crystal radio from a kit. I would listen to whatever stations I could raise at night. Because the radio was rather weak and Falwell's show was repeated on a large country station in Roanoke at about the time I went to bed I sometimes had no choice other than his show to listen to. Trust me, Jerry Falwell was a bigot. One positive effect of his association with the GOP is that at some point he was told to flat out lose the racism. He went on to oppose women's rights and when that became a political embarassment he moved on to gay-bashing. The man was a serial bigot.

QFT

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Calling someone "evil" disposes of all pretense of civil discussion. If someone is "evil" there is no need to listen to what they have to say and one need feel no remorse at anything bad that may happen to them. It is dehumanizing, which is fine if you're trying to make your gas chambers a little less guilt-inducing, but has no place in a democracy.

All Democracy means is "rule of the people." A democratic regime can commit genocide, enforce slavery, and any of the sort of acts usually labelled attrocities. There is an assumption that if the choice is left to a wide enough audience, the general kindness, or better yet the general apathy and fear of the masses will keep them from getting out of hand, but that is all there is, an assumption with no basis in meaning.

So you are wrong (no surprise). There is no need to listen to anyone in a democracy if the majorioty of people have decided to ignore whatever group is going to be ostracized.

Perhaps you mean a liberal regime, one which believes that individual human beings have certain innate liberties which no regime can take from them. The only problem is that a man like Falwell would have gladly dumped the liberal part and urged the majority to, in a wholely democratic way, deny a minority those inaliable liberties because he hated that minority.

[Kuciwalker]

Drake's point is that a liberal regime must treat even illiberals with respect or at least tolerance, and that calling people evil erodes the principle of tolerance. I disagree, but your critique misses the mark. The flaw (IMO) in his argument is that calling people evil doesn't erode the principle of tolerance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Drake's point is that a liberal regime must treat even illiberals with respect or at least tolerance, and that calling people evil erodes the principle of tolerance. I disagree, but your critique misses the mark. The flaw (IMO) in his argument is that calling people evil doesn't erode the principle of tolerance.

It's nice to know trolls stick together, but Drake isn't using the word liberal, so unless you are privy to Drake's own personal dicitionary, where liberal=democratic, it would be wiser for you to stop making excuses for him.

Anyway, Drake has no leg to stand on in lecturing anyone about tolerance for opposing viewpoints (not that many here in Poly do), and he certainly has no leg to stand on with regards to dicourse, since he decided to be a troll here a while ago, and trolls generally don't do discourse. No snappy zingers in that.

Oh, and of course, people are expressing their personal opinions on this thread, so if they want to treat Falwell with the same contempt Falwell treated others, then who cares? You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake's point is that a liberal regime must treat even illiberals with respect or at least tolerance, and that calling people evil erodes the principle of tolerance. I disagree, but your critique misses the mark. The flaw (IMO) in his argument is that calling people evil doesn't erode the principle of tolerance.

Actually, my point is that in a liberal democracy everyone has the right to express their own opinions (no matter how stupid or vile) and work through the political process to bring government more in line with their views. Doing so is not evil, yet you increasingly see people/groups in American society being labelled as such without cause.

Why does that matter? Well, calling a person/group "evil" is an easy way to dehumanize them. This eliminates the chance of any sort of constructive dialogue at best and leads to outright demonization and violence towards the "evil" person/group at worst. Obviously, these aren't desireable outcomes in a liberal democracy. Taken to the extreme, this is how you end up with moonbats who think George Bush is "evil" and would love to see him assassinated, or how you end up with wingnuts who would like nothing better than to see "evil" abortion doctors killed.

There certainly is real evil in this world, but it's rarer that you would think and it isn't healthy for people in a democratic society to be too loose with the term. Call Hitler evil all you want, but let's leave Falwell out of it. He was a loudmouthed jackass, but that doesn't make him evil...

[Drake Tungsten]

BTW, the same thing applies to terms like "bigot", "racist", "sexist", etc. There certainly are real bigots, racists and sexists, but frequently the terms are used as a lazy way to label an ideological opponent as beyond the pale of civilized society, thereby eliminating the need to actually engage them or address their arguments.

[BeBMan]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Why does that matter? Well, calling a person/group "evil" is an easy way to dehumanize them.

Dehumanizing? Like calling people animals?

And "evil" can be very well seen as part of human existance, which makes the use of the term not dehumanizing.

[Drogue]

I think Drake means the common usages of dehumanizing, to mean more like de-empathising, where calling someone evil allows you not to empathise with them or seem them as human in the same way that you are. It allows you to draw a line between us (non-evil people) and them (evil people), the same way racists used to draw a line in the 19th century between us as in whites and them as in blacks, enabling people of otherwise sound morals to treat black people as sub-human.

Saying "Jerry Falwell is evil" allows you to seperate yourself from him in a way that allows you to then say "therefore I'm happy about him suffering", as you don't then empathise with the suffering.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Drogue
I think Drake means the common usages of dehumanizing, to mean more like de-empathising, where calling someone evil allows you not to empathise with them or seem them as human in the same way that you are. It allows you to draw a line between us (non-evil people) and them (evil people), the same way racists used to draw a line in the 19th century between us as in whites and them as in blacks, enabling people of otherwise sound morals to treat black people as sub-human.

Surely I want to draw a line and separate myself from someone who preaches hate in that way, but that doesn't make him less human in any way to me. If that was the case then you can dig out nearly every term that implies some kind of moral judgement and call it "dehumanizing".

It may be that people sometimes use such terms in the way you describe, but declaring the use of them generally out of line sounds IMO like a cheap way to shut down criticism.

Saying "Jerry Falwell is evil" allows you to seperate yourself from him in a way that allows you to then say "therefore I'm happy about him suffering", as you don't then empathise with the suffering.

Hm - "suffering" is kinda hard to imagine to me in this case. We don't speak about someone helpless and oppressed here, but an influential member of a certain establishment who had no problem preaching hate against others.

And as atheist, a dead man isn't "suffering" to me anymore. Christian or other religious folks can ask themselves whether he's happy in heaven or indeed "suffering" in hell - a fate which according to their beliefs only awaits the bad guys.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Actually, my point is that in a liberal democracy everyone has the right to express their own opinions (no matter how stupid or vile) and work through the political process to bring government more in line with their views. Doing so is not evil, yet you increasingly see people/groups in American society being labelled as such without cause.

This I entirely agree with.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
There certainly is real evil in this world, but it's rarer that you would think and it isn't healthy for people in a democratic society to be too loose with the term. Call Hitler evil all you want, but let's leave Falwell out of it. He was a loudmouthed jackass, but that doesn't make him evil...

Again, something we agree on.

/me is scared

[Cort Haus]

I'm still interested in what Falwell's defenders here had to say about Saddam Hussain. Can they honestly say that they didn't applaud his death or describe him as 'evil'?

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, my point is that in a liberal democracy everyone has the right to express their own opinions (no matter how stupid or vile) and work through the political process to bring government more in line with their views. Doing so is not evil

That depends entirely on what their goals are.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Drake's point is that a liberal regime must treat even illiberals with respect or at least tolerance, and that calling people evil erodes the principle of tolerance. I disagree, but your critique misses the mark. The flaw (IMO) in his argument is that calling people evil doesn't erode the principle of tolerance.

Actually, my point is that in a liberal democracy everyone has the right to express their own opinions (no matter how stupid or vile) and work through the political process to bring government more in line with their views. Doing so is not evil, yet you increasingly see people/groups in American society being labelled as such without cause.

Why does that matter? Well, calling a person/group "evil" is an easy way to dehumanize them. This eliminates the chance of any sort of constructive dialogue at best and leads to outright demonization and violence towards the "evil" person/group at worst. Obviously, these aren't desireable outcomes in a liberal democracy. Taken to the extreme, this is how you end up with moonbats who think George Bush is "evil" and would love to see him assassinated, or how you end up with wingnuts who would like nothing better than to see "evil" abortion doctors killed.

That was a long way of saying what I said: calling people evil erodes the principle of tolerance.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
It's nice to know trolls stick together, but Drake isn't using the word liberal, so unless you are privy to Drake's own personal dicitionary, where liberal=democratic, it would be wiser for you to stop making excuses for him.

It's been fairly obvious to everyone reading this thread that the two are being used interchangeably, except maybe to you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
BTW, the same thing applies to terms like "bigot", "racist", "sexist", etc. There certainly are real bigots, racists and sexists, but frequently the terms are used as a lazy way to label an ideological opponent as beyond the pale of civilized society, thereby eliminating the need to actually engage them or address their arguments.

There are levels of racism, bigotry, and sexism.

Everyone is xenophobic to some degree, whoever minor, and exclusion of the "other" is something that all humans do.

How bigoted or racist someone is is a matter of opinion for each individual. It is also a matter of opinion whether you will argue with a bigot or not. One is able to label someone a bigot without then deciding that debate or discourse with them is impossible.