Talk:The Satanic Temple

	This Satanism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Comment

There seems to be an inherent contradiction between 'the freedom to offend' and 'To wilfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another': but just because one #can# do something, does not mean one #should# - and 'being courteous/not giving offence unintentionally' would resolve the matter. Anna Livia (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Alt-right apologetics

Call me crazy, I just read the arguments from Lucien Greaves which defend fascism and eugenics that @Carthage just put on the page, and they actually sound fucking reasonable. The defense of fascism is not a defense of fascism per se, but a defense of freedom of speech, and the points about removing negative traits from the population are hard to argue against on scientific grounds. I really think we need to provide concrete arguments against Greaves's arguments, or it might be a little dangerous to present them here. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Lucien Greaves, like many in certain circles, is completely misreading what "freedom of speech" means. The concept of "freedom of speech" only really applies for those with the armies, police, and guns. It does not really apply for the internal decisions of private groups, such as whoever this "Left Hand Path Consortium" invites or does not invite to their conferences. In fact, the opposite is true: it would be problematic for sure if a guest was only included solely because the government dictated that they needed to be there. So Greaves is merely whining here (in which it seems he was wrong).

BTW, what's up with the pro-eugenics remark? Do you really want to go there? "Removing negative traits from the population are hard to argue against on scientific grounds." -- study that history of eugenics when it was taken seriously (roughly from Darwin to Hitler), will you? That should show why that statement is 100% wrong, I hope. BobJohnson (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I said "on scientific grounds". Arguments against eugenics on moral grounds, such as human rights, tend to be considerably easier to work with. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where you're deriving that distinction from. Eugenics is a normative practice, not a descriptive one. Carthage (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you're distinguishing between "normative" and "descriptive". I also said "hard", not "impossible". I'm pretty sure I could find instances of social Darwinism being discredited and debunked if I had the time or energy to look for them. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

A normative claim is an ought statement. The way things should be. A descriptive claim is an is statement. The way things are. Social Darwinism and eugenics are normative, not descriptive. They're not scientific. They're ideology. Carthage (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. In any case, I do think we should include refutations of Greaves' arguments in the article, just to make the site's position on them clear. Otherwise, his arguments look… decent at face value. (At least the free speech and eugenics arguments look decent, though I can think of rough counterarguments ("paradox of tolerance" and "freedom of speech doesn't forbid non-government organizations from not giving a platform people with incompatible views" for the "fascists deserve to be heard" argument; "that's a gross violation of human rights, and [as long as we're talking about slippery slopes,] history has shown that eugenics inevitably devolves into genocide against whoever the people in power consider the scapegoat/punching bag in vogue" for the "eugenics is good" argument). The stuff in the ableism section is way too blatantly mean-spirited to take seriously as an argument that's trying to present itself as something worth listening to.) Luigifan18 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)