Silvanus said:
runic knight said:
I suppose it is inherently so, yes. Though not quite sure "I disagree with this assessment of something I obviously know jack shit about" is so much intentionally rude as it is just ignorant. In that regard I have to liken the perspective similar to how I would a creationist's. Yes I think they are ignorant the topic, but I can't use that alone to call for their head. The opinion starts interfering with the job, they start using it to justify attacking people or accusing them of horrible behavior, then yeah, in a heartbeat I'll call for the guy to be kicked free with the rest of everyone else. Right now it seems a little too close to just "I don't like your politics so begone".
There was no such humility as admitting he knows nothing about it; I can't see any other way to honestly describe the comments than intentionally insulting and dismissive.
Now, on sexuality, I'd describe his views on that count as ignorant, but not
intentionally denigrating, based on the article in the OP. But on gender identity, I can't see it as anything other than intentional denigration.
I have never seen a creationist go "I don't know much about evolution" either. Indeed, it often is the opposite, where their ignorance is presented as fact in spite of actual evidence. Such as the examples showed. On gender identity, he is wrong. However I can't say that is intentional denigration as comes off more as ignorance not malice. The "I don't agree you are what you say you are, because I don't believe what you say you are exists, so you are dumb" seems the line of thought. I don't see him saying such people are horrible immoral monsters or lesser human beings, merely dumb for having a different opinion then himself, which while ironically un-self-aware still doesn't seem malice towards transpeople so much ignorance and refusal to take in contrary information. Call him out, certainly, try to engage and correct the ignorance if you can, but I still can't say I support removal off ignorance and political difference alone. Granted, he is walking a paper thin line in that regard to me and one good twitter ragefest would be enough to convince me otherwise, but for now I can't.
MarsAtlas said:
Ignorance becomes malice when somebody tells you that you're wrong, explains that you're wrong, and you continue to deny it.
Explain that to any creationist, hell, any religious person, global warming denier, etc. Stubborn ignorance is still just ignorance, not malice. Even intentional ignorance is just ignorance, not malice. When we realize that information comes from other sources, and knowledge only comes from sources we trust (knowledge being what we
know, not necessarily what is fact), saying ignorance is malice is saying that they are immoral for not believing someone who supports your position. They are factually wrong, and they are ignorant. But being malicious is an incorrect claim.
Funny thing, evangelical creationists are deliberate liars, the lot of them. They know what they're saying isn't true. Interestingly enough, most creationist teachings express a false reasoning that one cannot be a follower of their faith without being a creationist. Some go further to say that its one's duty to spread these creationist lessons.
Given how hilariously easy it is to knock down the "XX Woman, XY Man" proposition, and that its already occurred, I believe its safe to say that Morse's views on trans people, which are harmful, are religious in nature.
I would agree. And it is because of my experiences with religious people of a similar mindset that I have to take the stance I do. Ignorance is just ignorance. When the basis of other opinions, it ripples down, but while one can call someone wrong for arguing with bad information, one can not call them immoral for that alone. Stubbornness doesn't respond well to dictates, and stubborn ignorance doesn't respond to dictated definitions that thy don't already accept. It is a pain in the ass, it is annoying, it is stupid even, but immoral it is not. Nor, for that matter, can I see that sort of stubborn ignorance by itself be reason enough to call for his head.
I know creationists who have ben con artists and swindlers. But I have also known the stubborn faithful who have believed them because of their ignorance and because they reacted poorly to attempts to inform them. I can't call an aged grandmother malicious because she doesn't know better and doesn't trust the messenger trying to teach her otherwise and I can't call this guy malicious because he is responding to a twitter conversation on the topic with the investment you'd expect of a political conversation on twitter. Now, if he uses it to justify attacking people, he uses it as excuse to not help people, he uses it as a means to devalue their rights as humans, then things change. Him disagreeing with what people call themselves because he doesn't believe in gender identity and instead sticks with gender dichotomy is archaic, but I can not call it malicious in nature.
