Even more problematic stuff

[Cunt]

Why do you hate the free market?

Haven't thought about it. If I hate the free market, it's a very subtle, unfocused hate.

Are you sure I'm not just a cranky old fuck?

[Brian Peacock]

...
If that is supposed to be some kind of argument in favour of unlimited tolerance, you failed.

The point is that if you highlight some hypocrisy there's always someone else who's more hypocritical, if you are annoyed or angered by someone there's always someone else who's more deserving of your ire, if you disagree with somebody politically there's always someone else who's more politically disagreeable, and therefore, no matter what you say, you're always wrong.

[rainbow]

...
If that is supposed to be some kind of argument in favour of unlimited tolerance, you failed.

The point is that if you highlight some hypocrisy there's always someone else who's more hypocritical, if you are annoyed or angered by someone there's always someone else who's more deserving of your ire, if you disagree with somebody politically there's always someone else who's more politically disagreeable, and therefore, no matter what you say, you're always wrong.

Rubbish, I'm far more hypocritical than you are.

[JimC]

You are indeed a whited sepulchre...

(Year 10 bible studies FTW! )

[Hermit]

...
If that is supposed to be some kind of argument in favour of unlimited tolerance, you failed.

The point is that if you highlight some hypocrisy there's always someone else who's more hypocritical, if you are annoyed or angered by someone there's always someone else who's more deserving of your ire, if you disagree with somebody politically there's always someone else who's more politically disagreeable, and therefore, no matter what you say, you're always wrong.

Well put. I hope our member from Yellowknife understands your interpretation of his post.

[Forty Two]

This Quote: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed," -- Yes, and that's what I do in my discussions - I defend a tolerant society against the intolerant. Those that I occasionally speak out against are among the intolerant, and I think we should defend ourselves against them.


Continues -- "...and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies;" -- I'm sure he doesn't. I'm sure he is fine with those that are intolerant when they hold political views that align with his.


Continues.... "...as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;" -- Yes! And, I get the same right to suppress if necessary, even by force, those views that I deem intolerant, too, yes?

Continues... "... for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument," Yes, when someone tries to suppress something we say... if necessary by force, they are not meeting us on the level of rational argument. So... we have the right to suppress them too, even by force!

Continues ... " but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. - K.R. Popper
[/quote]

And when you are the intolerant.... ? When someone turns round and points the finger at you, saying YOU are being intolerant, and we won't tolerate YOUR intolerance?

Reminds me of Robert Bolt and A Man for All Seasons - When the last law is cut down, and the devil turns round to face you, Roper, where do you hide, the laws having been all cut down?

I would give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.

You see, the right of free speech is a benefit granted to everyone, even the person you think is the Devil. If you cut that down, to get at the devil, he will spin round on you, and then you do not have the benefit of that same right with which to resist him.

That's the thing. This argument about how "we" shouldn't tolerate the intolerant falls of its own weight. The intolerant are part of "we." Antifa, for example, are super-intolerant. Shall we deny them the right to free speech and suppress them by force if necessary? Or, no, because they are the good guys, just being intolerant of intolerance? Well, I'm intolerant of their intolerance, maybe? Or do I not have that right?

Which ideological faction gets to make the determination about which intolerance to tolerate and which intolerance to properly be intolerant of?

[Brian Peacock]

You Tolerists are intolerable!

[Brian Peacock]

Why is the question of what is acceptable or unacceptable, or dangerous or of benefit to society so often pitched as a battle between competing ideologies? Even the ardent Tolerist doesn't think that all things should be tolerated, or that freedom of expression grants a consequence-free license to people to say whatever they like, wherever they like, whenever they like, about whomever they like - and yet it is the presumption of such a license upon which their tone-policing arguments so often rests. The Tolerist, it seems, will tolerate anything and everything accept people who say that not everything should be tolerated.

[Animavore]

Was watching "Lisa the Iconoclast" episode of The Simpsons from 1996. Lisa writes an essay which shows Jebediah Springfield was a pirate and not the hero the town believes.

Her teacher gives her an F citing "This is nothing but white male bashing from a PC thug. It's women like you who make it hard for women like me to get a man."

Did I mention this was from 1996.

[Svartalf]

well, I so wish groening still had the balls to make stuff as un PC as that...

[Cunt]

Why is the question of what is acceptable or unacceptable, or dangerous or of benefit to society so often pitched as a battle between competing ideologies?

Because usually, one or the other is advocating silencing their idoelogical opponents.

When you say 'That Cunt should shut up!' it isn't such a bad thing, but when you say 'everyone who supports my political rival should shut up!', I hope you can see the difference.

It is usually the competing ideologies which describe the most clear problem with this.

Even the ardent Tolerist doesn't think that all things should be tolerated, or that freedom of expression grants a consequence-free license to people to say whatever they like, wherever they like, whenever they like, about whomever they like

I don't think so. I don't know anyone who does, to be honest.

I do think there needs to be some place where anything can be said...any discussion had.

Do you disagree with that?

Where should such discussions be allowed?

[Animavore]

Well, the only thing about the episode is Lisa decides a myth that brings the town together and backs down.

Also the episode contains the phrase, "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man."

Sounds Trumpian.

[Forty Two]

Why is the question of what is acceptable or unacceptable, or dangerous or of benefit to society so often pitched as a battle between competing ideologies?

The answer to that is obvious. Because some ideologies grant themselves the right to say whatever they want, but deny that right to other ideologies - or they define the beliefs of opposing ideologies as themselves unacceptable per se. That happens all the time. When some groups try to claim that opposition to new bathroom rules, or federal funding for transitioning, or opposing gay marriage, or opposing abortion are unacceptable and dangerous. In the old days it was communism. The communists needed to be shut up, because their views were dangerous. Ideologies get declared unacceptable.

Even the ardent Tolerist doesn't think that all things should be tolerated, or that freedom of expression grants a consequence-free license to people to say whatever they like, wherever they like, whenever they like, about whomever they like - and yet it is the presumption of such a license upon which their tone-policing arguments so often rests. The Tolerist, it seems, will tolerate anything and everything accept people who say that not everything should be tolerated.

It depends what you mean by tolerated. Being tolerant doesn't mean you don't criticize or oppose anything. But the idea that "we" have the right to use FORCE if necessary to suppress other intolerant people is what I was referring to.

And now you want to argue that freedom of speech should not be consequence-free - yet the first thing you gripe about is "tone-policing." Don't you see that tone-policing is what leftists and rightists both do when they criticize their opposition? Rashida Tlaib says she wants to "impeach the motherfucker" and then her opposition criticize her for it and police her tone. All fair. I think her commentary was crude and inappropriate, too. The point is whether being intolerant of her speech means I get the right to suppress it, by force if necessary, if I think it's unacceptable. I say no, I don't have that right. What say you?

I don't care if people refuse to "tolerate" anything. If John Doe doesn't want to tolerate pro-LGBT speeches, then he can avoid them, argue with them, protest them, boycott them, whatever. What he can't do is suppress them by force, even if he thinks they're dangerous to his kids, etc. Similarly, Richard Roe may not want to tolerate alt-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulis and his "hateful rhetoric" - so he can ovoid, argue, protest, boycott, etc., whatever - but he cannot suppress him by force, even if he thinks Milo's views are dangerous.

Dangerous ideas are to be free and it is not up to vigilantes, or the State, to use force or compulsion toward John Doe or Richard Roe as to what to say, what to think, or who to listen to.

[Cunt]

It comes down to that old question restated by Hitchins...who is qualified to decide what it is safe for you to read? (I'm paraphrasing...wouldn't dare try to do as well as that guy on this subject)

[Hermit]

You see, the right of free speech is a benefit granted to everyone, even the person you think is the Devil. If you cut that down, to get at the devil, he will spin round on you, and then you do not have the benefit of that same right with which to resist him.

And if you don't cut that down, "[ i]f we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed..."

Popper called it "the paradox of tolerance" for good reason. It is probably not a coincidence that his comment on limited tolerance was published in 1945 as a footnote in Volume I of his rant against communism, Plato and fascism (in that order of importance), titled The Open Society and Its Enemies