Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

tranarchy wrote

I can agree to disagree with people who aren't anarchists yet still share many of my goals or moral values. I can't agree to disagree with those who I consider to be fundamentally immoral in values or behavior. If someone says "yeah, I think we need to take action against racism and fascism and authoritarianism and strive towards a more free and just world, but I don't think anarchism is practical" I can understand that view. If someone says "racism is necessary and there must always be a race on top", then I will never be able to agree to disagree with that. Civil debate seems to me to be a pretext for pretending that both sides of the debate are of equal value and merit equal consideration, and that's simply not always the case. There are things that cannot be civilly debated. I'm not going to have a civil discussion as to whether my rights or the rights of others should be abridged.

If we can agree that things like racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, transphobia, and other axes of oppression exist and something should be done about them, then we can have a civil discussion about how we should approach doing something about them. If not, then we can't.