I Like Politics

@Jackaloftheazuresand I actually just posted Beaus' last video. It was more about all of his content. Not specifically of what happened in Alabama. I didn't know much about the controversy, so I had to look it up.

You can adress this issue in two ways. You can say that this guy made a factual statement, that says that killing off "the problem" makes it go away. And that's a statement that is kinda correct. People will still be born that be attracted to the same sex tough. But if you kill those people too, then society is supposedly "free" from the issue. As Ahmadinejad (ex president of Iran) once said during a Q&A at a university where a student asked: "How about the gay people in Iran" , and his answers was: "you are misinformed, there are no gay people in Iran.". (Just because Iranian sharia inspired law just kills thems off) So yeah, "factually" correct. (if you see being "gay" as a "problem" , cause I believe that is seriously subjective, and can actually be argued against).

However, the other way of looking at it, is way more problematic. You have a "mayor" a political leader, in a western-liberal-democracy that tweets that writes: [i]"The only way to change it would be to kill the problem out. I know it's bad to say, but with out killing them out there is no way to fix it."[/i].

1. He dehumanises the people he talks about, by calling them "a problem". It's not their feelings, their way of thinking, it's not the ideas, ... no the person by itself becomes "the problem". The moment you start doing that, towards an audience, you are really walking on thin ice.

2. At the root of the ideals of a western-liberal-democracy there are things like:

- Human Rights
- Pluralism / Socialibity / Consensus (the respect for variety)
- Enlightenment values (Fact based / logic / ratio)
- A believe in progress (envioremental / technological / a human level)
- Limitations on Power (Trias Politica / Rule of Law)
- The believe in individual rights (not the same as individualism)
- Liberty

... I'm not sure, but a "mayor" that functions within the constraints of a "liberal-democracy" and that suggests that the only way to take care of a "problem" (he's talking about human beings here) sins against a lot of these rules. Now, "liberal democray" is not the only form of state, you can openly proclaim that you don't like it and actively go against it (pluralism allows that). But then you should also face the consequences as long as you function in a liberal democracy. In this case, since you don't respect certain of these ideas, and openly whipe your ass with constitutional rights, as a political figure, you should step down.

And when we are talking about "hate-speech", which I believe is a term that comes up way to often, ... this is actually a class example of what most "hate-speech law" in liberal democracies are actively fighting against. It not only dehumanises people it also has a violent side. It may not be openly calling for "violence", but it uses "violence" really loosely and doesn't openly go against it. As a public figure that is something really condemning for a person that does believe in a those liberal values I stated above.