New Law in California

[Umbran]

Not all beliefs are valid and some are more toxic and harmful than others.

Yeah, you probably don't want to use that defense here. You are not the arbiter of what beliefs are valid.

I am also free to criticize them

You are free to note factual data that contradicts their position. But you are not so free to call them names and slap negative labels on them. Remember that, please. Disagree, but be respectful.

 

[Raunalyn]

Bullying is found among fundamentalists. But not all bullying is fundamentalist. I daresay, bullies are found in all corners, not just the fundamentalist one.

I can understand not wanting people who share your opinion to be insulted. But slapping labels on others isn't an appropriate response. It is understandable, but not appropriate.

It's not so much that I share their opinions, it's that I'm sympathetic to their worries. But bullying and ridicule are not conducive to a reasonable discussion. Once the unnecessary ridicule came out, I found it completely unnecessary to have further discussion with him (since I suspect he wouldn't listen to anything I had to say, anyway). So, to maintain civility, I stepped out.

 

[Kramodlog]

Yeah, you probably don't want to use that defense here. You are not the arbiter of what beliefs are valid.

I do not need to, others did it for me. There is plenty of data gathered by competent scientists that show that vaccines are beneficial and cause little harm. And that data as been reproduced many times too. Same goes for global warming, cigarette use, Earth being round, Obama being born in the US... As someone else pointed out, the debates have been done and won.

I'm all for alterity, tolerence, independant thinking, etc, but some issues are settled, some ideas are harmful, and do not stand up to critical thinking. There is nothing wrong with saying so. Like there is nothing wrong with saying some Republicans policies do not stand up to critical thinking.

But you are not so free to call them names and slap negative labels on them.

It has been said plenty of times and I still haven't done it. No need to step in everytime I say something.

 

[Umbran]

It has been said plenty of times and I still haven't done it.

Yes you did. "conspirationists" was your word.

You didn't name a *particular* person, but you cast an aspersion on a wide group of people. That's also recognized as a problem. Negative stereotypes are not to be flung about lightly.

No need to step in everytime I say something.

Dude, I think you'll find that the vast and overwhelming majority of your posts go without comment from me, so don't blow it out of proportion. I am trying to handle this in a friendly fashion, for sake of helping folks adjust to the experiment. But perhaps I erred in taking a conversational position for this. If you need me to switch to orange text to remind you that you should not presume to tell me when notes on tone are called for, I can do that.

 

[Kramodlog]

Yes you did. "conspirationists" was your word.

You didn't name a *particular* person, but you cast an aspersion on a wide group of people. That's also recognized as a problem. Negative stereotypes are not to be flung about lightly.

Conspirationist exists, like racists. Both are toxic. Next thing you'll say is that I can say Trump is racist for his Mexican-rape comments cause that will offend some people.