And you talk to them, greet them, as if all was well?

I would. Think of someone like Daryl Davis. Extending an olive branch is sometimes the antidote to hatred.

Expressing hatred is a breach of (potential) trust. It's a declaration of war terms.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

Yes, I can.

Right, but suppose there are acts, like masturbating, what then? Is it permissible to let pedophiles accumulate photos/videos/blow-up dolls of children that will then be used for the distinct purpose of getting off to? After all, who is the victim?

The victims are those in the photos and videos. That's why such materials are considered contraband, I believe. So I do not think it is permissible to accumulate such materials.

I’ve had this thought quite often, and for the most part agree. The only issue then is that, in order for us to be consistent, we must not object to pedophiles lusting after our children. Emotionally, I’m just not able to stomach this. So I’m at a bit of an impasse...

I don't see why you must not object. Just like the racist, such beliefs are worthy of suspicion, contempt and ridicule. The only point is we shouldn't blur the line between words and beliefs on the one hand, and acts on the other.

No, the scenario in the OP specifies that the racist clearly verbalizes their racist stance toward the target and that the rest of the community know about this.

In the scenario the racist also verbalizes that she would treat the person with common courtesy. Where exactly does the injury occur?

For being targeted for racism, in this case.

I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it.

Governments are worse because they have the force of law and the monopoly on violence. It's no wonder, then, that private interests seek its favor and protection. If the market was free, and governments didn't take it upon themselves to meddle in the economy, I suspect no such relationship would exist.

It's what people do, every day, and it seems worth it to them. Just blame the victim, just blame the one who is worse off.

Blame the victim for what?

A negligible price to pay.

Hardly. You would only ossify the very beliefs you oppose. And someone could use the same argument to expel the minority.

Fair enough and credit to you if you can ignore him. I would have a hard time and it would be on my mind anytime I saw the neighbor or passed the neighbor's house. How would you deal with other neighbors who engaged with the bigot in conversation? You see what I mean when I said earlier that there's now possibly something resembling a mini-Cold war in the community.

I wouldn’t ignore him. I just wouldn’t expel him or sanction him for what he believes, just as I wouldn’t let the community expel the minority, and for the same reasons. Rather I would attempt to foster conversation between opposing parties.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for?

The community ought to leave them alone and afford them the right to believe what they want. Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise.

That is the course of humanity: liberals dragging conservatives into the future and progress.

That’s an important point. It’s the same with the modern welfare state. State welfare in imperial Germany and Austria, for example, were reactionary and religious creations. That progressives nowadays champion such measures, and conservatives oppose them, is somewhat ironic.

I would argue, though, that both conservatives and progressives have led us into a future of abject statism rather than something desirable. But as you say that’s the course of right-left politics.

My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world?

I think it should. But manhood is a question of maturity as much as it is masculinity. In an infantilizing society one can get away without both.

If any harm is derived from seeing others smoke weed, or knowing that a dispensary exists in the neighborhood, it is entirely self-inflicted. The bellyacher is both perpetrator and victim.

I can understand the reticence when it comes to doing the right thing in a corrupt system. Doing so can lead to adverse consequences, maybe some sort of sanction or violence. I cannot oblige someone to do something that may risk his livelihood, and therefor he is under no obligation from me. The motivation to do the right thing must come from his own conscience.

If a man of newsworthy importance speaks, I would prefer the journalists inform me of what he said, and not withhold that information due to some fear or other of how that information may be used. Even if that information is false, inflammatory, or injurious to someone’s reputation, to suppress it is to suppress the fact that it was spoken and the facts of what was said, denying me an accurate account of the truth.

Journalists report facts, as best they can be determined to be facts. Period. Argument is the province of commentary on the news. And to be sure, there is good and bad commentary, and commentary not worthy of name. In a restaurant you may not like the meal, fair enough, but you do not expect to be served a plateful of s***, nor would you expect a restaurant that served such be allowed to remain open. And the same with commentary, although there is no Health Department to control as to what is being served - beyond some very broad limits on free speech.

The point here being not to confuse journalism with commentary.

It is often the case that people make arguments the journalist doesn’t like. They need not suppress those arguments. Period. I wouldn’t expect a server to hide burgers from the menu if he doesn’t like beef.

Again, from the code of ethics at the society of professional journalists: “Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

“Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”

- Lester Holdt

Lester’s argument is, ironically, unsupported. The journalist’s role is to inform us, not to decide which arguments we can or cannot hear. He fails in this regard.

Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

The Questions of King Milinda is an interesting exchange between a Buddhist scholar and the Indo-Greek King Menander.

Imagine thinking you can pick and choose what pronouns you want to use but others are not allowed. But it’s more than just pronouns. There are a variety of odd demands that people make of others in order to satisfy their own personal wants and comforts. This sort of solipsism is regnant in some circles. I’m reminded of the Democratic Socialists of America conference that went viral a couple years ago and how tedious it all is.

I think there are a few instances where insult is appropriate in debate. Insult can make debate enjoyable and accessible when it is used as a rhetorical flourish or to provide pathos to an otherwise boring argument. It can be used as a form of banter and camaraderie between two opponents. It should be used, without exception, whenever it is used against you—one cannot give a snide little bully the satisfaction. But on its own and without argument, insult is the basest propaganda.

There is something it is like to be a bat. That something is the bat. I could never understand the supposed profundity of Nagel’s arguments.

You should take sides on these matters. All out war is at stake.

I don’t know more than you do. I just think it was bad intel, therefor walking back is good. If there is evidence I am wrong I need to hear it, but until then...

The first intel about bounties was bad. The second intel walking it back was good. Sounds like spin to me.

Do you believe the intel about bounties was good?

I can read a paragraph of your piffle. But a paragraph full of links and appeals to ridicule is about all you’ve offered.

So, when it suits your bias, they are gold. When they don't, they are suspect. Got it.

I never said that. But spin all you like. I don’t expect anything else.

Ever notice how right-wingers don't read books and substitute that by just pimping bad quotes?

I’m surprised you didn’t link to Jacobin mag.

I can trust that they had to walk back their conspiracy theories. They have already got what they wanted: stopping troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Unfortunately in so doing they have edged us closer to war with Russia.

The “intel people” have been notorious failures. The Iraq war was premised on “intelligence” derived from methods of torture. When they start rattling their sabres it should be doubted on principle.

Well said.

I wager the attractive part is that they get to release themselves of their duty to their fellow man. Why else would they beg for some state apparatus to pick up their slack?

More fantasy.

Unfortunately it’s a dangerous game. Such hoax-worthy lies have brought the US and Russia that much closer to war. Skepticism of the story proved not only right, but prudent.

Here's another example. While I thank you for the comment, for full disclosure it's worth pointing out that you're also a good illustration of the type of person who I don't simply disagree with, but who is also dangerously ignorant and unwittingly helping humanity race to annihilation -- and that's not an exaggeration. Thus I have quite a hard time controlling my emotions, as you've demonstrated time and again that you're beyond rational discourse, and so leave no recourse but contempt and violence.

It is an exaggeration, if not an outright fantasy. We’ve never met.

I remember this story finding a home among the credulous (one can type "bounties" into the search bar for a good laugh).

U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops

"It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a “hoax.”"

That was a good read, Xtrix. Thank you.

I cashed in on Space Force hats. $400USD on eBay

I bought some Dogecoin back in 2018 on a whim, and essentially forgot about it. It's surging right now and I have over %1000 ROI.

Is humanity, as a species, capable of selecting competent, moral leadership with the will to move this world forward into an age of sustainable environmental stewardship and peaceful coexistence with each other......or are we totally screwed.

A moral leadership would have to do so with education, voluntary participation, and compromise if they should remain moral. An immoral leadership could do so through tyranny. I don’t think the species is capable of either. But don’t despair! We can rest on the knowledge that the species is awful at predicting the future, and hope for the best.

I appreciated your formulation.

What do people think about Nietzsche’s Death of God?

He was quite prophetic about the coming nihilism. It seems right that if an orthodoxy is proven absurd, it risks leaving those who rely on such a foundation to be without one for a time, or at least to search for another one in a frenzy, leading to mental and even actual conflict. The quick retreat leaves a vacuum. And for an ideology that often seeks to suppress competing world-views, like Christianity, such a retreat is particularly dangerous because it has already limited access to better ideas, leaving one without many substitutes.

Yet here you are evoking my name. What bothers you about my individualistic worldview, so much that you need to call me names?

See how the evil vampire who is actually a nerd living in his mother's basement reins in ontology to the needs of his individualistic worldview.

Maybe one day you’ll learn to face my ideas instead of the little effigy you’ve constructed in your fantasies. Until then consider my name as your trigger-warning.

What do you mean by individualism in this account?

I think a pluralist and nominalistic account of the world leads to individualism in the political sphere. The individual is the only valid classification worth considering, mainly because the existence of groups and other taxonomies can be seriously questioned.