Everything you need to know about the ‘one million march for children’ to stop the ‘indoctrination of children in public schools’

  • Nahvi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Marginalize hate by becoming hate.

    Teaching children to hate, especially dogmatic hate, is disgusting even when one’s stance is morally correct. If a stance is just, then by teaching children ethics and critical thinking they will come to the correct conclusion on their own. When one uses the exact same playbook as the worst parts of the group they hate, they become the worst part of the group they represent.

    Since some people don’t seem to realize what a bigot actually is:

    bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    Edit: Phrasing, mostly replacing the word “you” with generic pronouns.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You are mistaken. I am not espousing “intolerance of those who differ”. I am espousing intolerance of a group of deadly dangerous bigots who demonize anyone who is not in their group. Do not equivocate the haters and their victims who reject them. That is a tactic of the conservatives.

      • Nahvi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        When you name yourself @Burn_The_Right, you make it clear whether you are targeting a specific group or everyone in a certain political direction.

        When you make statements like:

        Biden is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals are conservatives. They are better dressed and more intelligent, but they are conservatives by all international measures.

        Or dismiss 40-year democrats as conservatives:

        Who are you calling “we”? A quick check of your comment history shows you are a conservative.

        You make it clear whether you mean a single group or everyone who doesn’t share your brand of liberalism.

        Combined with:

        Conservatism is the biggest threat to humanity on planet earth. All means to extinguish an infestation are justified.

        or this gem: Edit: fixed broken link.

        Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.

        Conservatism is a plague of oppression and death.

        You can pretend that you are not an intolerant bigot advocating for mass-murder, but your own words betray you.

        Reading through the constant fountain of hate that you spew in your comments makes it clear just how big of a problem Lemmy has right now. The vast majority of you comments are pushing for at least two-thirds of society to be “extinguished”.

        I have seen whole instances defederated for having a user say less violent and bigoted things than your comments do.

        Is this the centrist part, where some violence is ok?

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If I had to guess, I’d say cryptofascist. He demands tolerance towards bigots and only bigots.

          • Nahvi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nice false dichotomy.

            I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.

            It is bad enough to marginalize small groups, but any political view that is advocating marginalizing half of society is the real enemy and should be fought against by all free people.

            • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Idgaf what you think. You’re of the opinion that people who can’t even agree that certain members of our society are human and deserve basic rights should be sat down with and talked to?

              I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.

              Look up the tolerance paradox and think hard about that.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.

                One person’s nonsense is another person’s importance.

                None of these people on either side are going to just magically disappear because the other side doesn’t like them.

                If you want them to respect you enough to hear what you’re saying (I’m assuming when you comment you actually want people to read it and consider what you’re saying) you should do the same in reverse, even if you disagree with what they’re saying.

                Ignorance and Hate only leads to War and Death.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Jumping in to say: fuck the tolerance paradox.

                There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else

                Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.

                Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.

                There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.

                The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.

                I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society

                There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges

                • Nahvi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Glad to hear someone spell this out. Hopefully more people read it.

                  • theneverfox@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’ve been saying it for a good while now, and almost never get much response -but it’s worth saying anyways.

                    Please help spread this idea… It’ll never be popular, but it’s important. Far too few people get that, but words that ring true tend to stick with people down the line

              • Nahvi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                There is a far cry between tolerance without limit and hating anyone that doesn’t agree with you. I can give you a hint as to which side you have been arguing for in case you got confused along the way.

                  • Nahvi@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    10
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Stop talking to me.

                    Cute. You involved yourself in my dialogue, not the other way around. You could have stopped responding at any point.

                    It is hard being presented with logical reason that disagrees with our emotional beliefs. Look up cognitive dissonance. It might help you reconcile the pain.

            • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              to and find the few things we both agree on.

              And when their stance is ‘trans people shouldn’t have rights’ what’s the middle ground there exactly?

              • Nahvi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And when their stance is ‘trans people shouldn’t have rights’ what’s the middle ground there exactly?

                It should be obvious that I was not advocating for a middle ground between two disparate stances on a single issue. I was advocating for choosing issues that we already mostly agree on.

                In general, in a democracy, laws should not be created relating to issues that there is little to no agreement on. Trans rights is obviously one of the issues where there is little agreement amongst the population and laws, particularly national laws, should be avoided until there is a strong consensus among the population.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                And when their stance is ‘trans people shouldn’t have rights’ what’s the middle ground there exactly?

                sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.

              Realize you’re getting a lot more downvotes than upvotes, but I just wanted to let you know you’re not alone, in this way of thinking.

              • Nahvi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am glad to hear it. Sometimes I wonder what happened to this mindset or if was it an illusion all along.

      • Nahvi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        I learned at a young age that hating someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.

        I feel the same disdain towards someone who would suggest we eradicate people because of their skin color or ethnic background as I do towards someone that would suggest that we eradicate people because of their political views.

        The difference being, I have never encountered anyone in real life or on Lemmy who would openly admit to being a nazi, whereas I have never spent an hour on Lemmy without seeing someone who thinks its okay to unironically say, “kill conservatives” or “eat rich people” receive overwhelming positive votes.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The difference being, I have never encountered anyone in real life or on Lemmy who would openly admit to being a nazi

          You guys never do.

          • Nahvi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Now for your turn. Do you hate leftists that shame your stance by promoting genocide?

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              I hate anyone who promotes genocide. It’s why I hate nazis.

              Conservatism and wealth are neither immutable characteristics nor cultures. You have provided zero examples of leftists calling for genocide.

              Then again, your definition of “bigotry” is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don’t like bigots. Who knows how bonkers and contrary to reality your definition of “genocide” is?

              • Nahvi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                I hate anyone who promotes genocide.

                Then we should be on similar sides of this argument.

                Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics? Or are we just going to pretend that most Western conservatives aren’t Protestants?

                your definition of “bigotry” is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don’t like bigots

                How odd, that doesn’t sound anything like what I posted earlier. Not something I wrote mind you, just the first thing that came up when I web-searched “bigot”. It is almost like you are making up a fake argument, that is easy to defeat, and then pretending I said something like it. If only there was a name for that sort of thing. S…st…straw… I will give you hint, it isn’t strawberry.

                Here is the exact quote I posted earlier:

                bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

                If you are getting something significantly different than that when you look up bigot, you might try using something other than Google; it has a tendency to reinforce one’s own biases.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics?

                  Conservatism itself is not a religion. There are plenty of conservative atheists and non-conservative religious institutions. Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.

                  The only portion of the definition of “bigot” you care about is the portion you bolded. Which you’re using as a proxy for “people who hold political views that are rooted in bigotry.”

                  I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots. I hope that never changes.

                  • Nahvi@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There are plenty of conservative atheists

                    I have no doubt that there are some conservative atheists, but let’s not pretend that they represent anything other than an extreme minority of self-identified conservatives.

                    Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.

                    I will let Wikipedia do the talking here.

                    Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.

                    the portion you bolded.

                    The bolded portion was the portion relevant to the conversation, and relevant to Lemmy in general. Even if what you are saying was true and that was all I cared about, it wouldn’t mean OC wasn’t being bigoted.

                    I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots.

                    If Lemmy was hostile to all bigots instead of just conservative bigots, someone else would have called out OC as a bigot. After picking my jaw up off the floor, I would have upvoted then moved on.

            • WHARRGARBL@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Genocide now?

              Genocide is the intent to destroy members of a specific nationality, religion, ethnicity, or race.

              Your hyperbole in this thread is a testament to the comments pointing out that conservatives don’t engage with reason.

              • Nahvi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                If we are going to say that most conservatives are white protestants then yes it sounds like a fair term to use.

                Though even if we decide it is the wrong term, calling for the eradication of large parts of the population based on religious, cultural and a political affiliation is still abhorrent.

          • Nahvi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Guilty as charged or at least close enough.

            Like most centrists, many of my views are not really in the center but I think it is necessary in a democracy to find a middle ground between the extremes.

        • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’ve never met someone on real life who is openly racist, calls themselves a nazi, openly supports bigoted policies and/or actively works to remove rights from people for who they are - you’re not paying attention. This is on a post about people organizing a march and politically strategizing to strip the rights away from other people.

          • Nahvi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I did not say that I had never met a racist or someone who supports bigoted policies, just that I had never met anyone that would admit to being a nazi. The difference being most nazis know they should keep their extremist views hidden.

            I have met plenty or racists. For most of them it is subtle and they don’t recognize it for what it is. I have never heard any of them advocate for killing everyone on the other side of the political spectrum or eating humans.

            remove rights from people for who they are

            This is vague and politically loaded. I have definitely met TERFs, pro-lifers, and those that advocate against gender treatments for children, but that is not at all the same as advocating mass murder and cannibalism for those that disagree with their views.

            I don’t know anything about the group behind those protests. I was vaguely curious about it when I clicked this post but made the mistake of reading the most upvoted comment in this thread.

            In my mind there is a pretty big difference between what the article says is the groups stated viewpoint:

            “Our primary concern is indoctrination of children in public schools,” the group says on its website. “This movement is mainly focused on protection of children against LGBTQIA+ ideology in school system and not to fight back against the LGBTQ community.”

            and these excerpts from OCs own comment and history:

            Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with conservatives.

            or

            Conservatism is the biggest threat to humanity on planet earth. All means to extinguish an infestation are justified.

            and

            Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.

            • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think you lost track of who you’re arguing with. But yeah, you admit people can be subtle about how they express their views and yet don’t understand why that makes conservatives in north america dangerous.

              I paint them with broad strokes because calling yourself a conservative in this times is accepting the broad variety of beliefs that political party supports. People have a choice.

              As a marginalized person who had no choice in how I was born and always felt the affects of conservative policies, to the extreme detriment of my health and well-being, I absolutely understand and support anyone who thinks they should be ostracized.

    • WHARRGARBL@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Teaching children to hate? Where did that come from?

      This is about teaching children how to recognize hate and avoid making hate part of their lives. It’s education and boundaries. Discretion isn’t hate.

      • Nahvi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t teach children to recognize hate by pointing at everyone right of middle and saying, those are bad people. That is how you teach hate itself.

        • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s acceptable for the same reason we tell our kids to avoid violent and hurtful people. I wouldn’t befriend anyone who supports removing my rights for any reason, teaching kids to do the same promotes building healthy relationships with people who value and support each other.

          • Nahvi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Teaching kids to avoid violent and hurtful people is reasonable, but claiming the entire right side of the spectrum is equivalent to them is prejudicial bigotry. Teaching kids to do the same is teaching them the same prejudicial bigotry.

            I wouldn’t befriend anyone who supports removing my rights

            When you redefine a spectrum of beliefs as “removing my rights” then what you are removing is any ability to continue discourse. Without discourse there is no democracy. At best you end up with the tyranny of majority.

            • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a long walk and a slippery slope. Deciding not to involve detrimental people in my life is not removing someone’s right. It’s my right to choose the people I surround myself with, and it’s no one’s right to be coddled by their peers.