Submitted by ThomasJP1983 t3_yv9nft in philosophy
Comments
iiioiia t1_iwh0gt1 wrote
>> In Western countries, certain liberal values have achieved hegemony. > > > > Really?
> Which ones?
Our mainstream culture sits on top of many axiomatic memes: democracy and science are the greatest, "rights" are real/non-imaginary, etc.
Assembling a full inventory would be a very long and emotionally challenging project.
> And how is this hegemony of ideas structured?
As I see it, it tends to be distributed as independent but self-reinforcing memes.
> Who decides where a given value falls within the hegemony?
Media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc don't so much decide maybe, but strongly influence people's "decisions" (formation of beliefs).
> Personally, I find a major problem with conservative and right-wing thinkers is that they tend to assume hierarchies are both natural and inevitable. This leads them to view the world through that rose-colored lens, where everything must be part of a hierarchy and if one group (or their ideas) gains recognition, it must be at the expense of another.
All humans view reality through various biased lenses - for example, when they describe the (imaginary) members of their outgroups. Rare is the person who can catch themselves doing it.
> This simply is not true; but damned if we're going to successfully explain why it's not true to a conservative thinker.
As a True/False binary it is surely not 100% true, but as a spectrum, how true is it (say, in percentage terms)?
And if you are unable to explain it to a conservative thinker, do you know (as opposed to believe) that the problem is 100% on the receiving end?
> Or is the dilemma merely the fact that some people hold certain beliefs that the general public has decided (through their "hegemonic" practices, of course) to be unworthy of respect in polite society?
This seems like part of the problem - take the various "facts" one reads about religion and religious people every day on Reddit as just one example.
> This entire article is a veiled rant about how people are being mean to the author on Twitter.
As the saying goes: Perception is Reality.
DrakBalek t1_iwh5mec wrote
"Perception is Reality" is inaccurate. More correct is "perception is reality," with small letters instead of capital, because perception is limited to the individual. Reality exists outside of our perception. "Tree falls in a forest, no one around, does it make a sound," etc.
"Perception is reality" means "if I perceive something to be true, I will act as though it is true." This is a useful axiom for dealing with people, to be sure, but it's terrible whenever we need to deal with the real world. You might perceive an absence of cars on the road but that won't protect you from being struck and killed by one.
>>Who decides where a given value falls within the hegemony?
>Media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc don't so much decide maybe, but strongly influence people's "decisions" (formation of beliefs).
Hegemony: "leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others."
Are you saying our "media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc." have dominance over our society? Curious. I can see how that argument could be made but I think it's rather soft; that is, yes, certain persons on the internet have had a direct influence over me, personally, over the past few years; but I am not beholden to them. Indeed, I no longer consume content from some influencers that, just a year ago, I would have considered high on my list of reliable sources. This isn't to say that they're not worth listening to, rather, that I don't see how this hegemony functions in practice. Further, I'm not convinced there is a hegemonic order (as the OP seems to think there is). I think there's a different kind of order, but it's certainly not hegemonic (though it is hierarchical, after a fashion, mostly because people tend to naturally organize themselves into groups with a hierarchy).
>All humans view reality through various biased lenses
True; but this fact has little bearing on the point I was making.
Unless you want to argue that a left-leaning bias is somehow equivalent to a right-leaning one . . . which is patently absurd, on its face, if we take the time to understand what the Left and Right (as political platforms go) actually believe.
>And if you are unable to explain it to a conservative thinker, do you know (as opposed to believe) that the problem is 100% on the receiving end?
I do.
Because I've been explaining these concepts to people for a long time. And I've found that, when someone refuses to understand the basics, it's usually because of a deeply held conviction (i.e. bias) about how the world works.
iiioiia t1_iwhp6gm wrote
> Reality exists outside of our perception.
Also: our perception of reality exists within reality (which complicates things substantially, because it raises the question: just what is "reality"?).
> "Perception is reality" means "if I perceive something to be true, I will act as though it is true."
Agreed. It also typically means that the person considers their opinion of what is true to be synonymous with what is actually true.
Also: some people have much more powerful means of communicating their opinion about reality as if it is factual reality, confusing people further.
> This is a useful axiom for dealing with people, to be sure, but it's terrible whenever we need to deal with the real world. You might perceive an absence of cars on the road but that won't protect you from being struck and killed by one.
Agreed....so too with plenty of "facts" that spread throughout the memeplex. The Science has been on a big run for the last few years.
> Are you saying our "media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc." have dominance over our society?
They have substantial persuasive power. Compare the general public's consensus take on affairs in Ukraine to what is broadcast as the state of affairs in Ukraine - I don't know about you, but I sense some pretty strong correlation between the two, enough that I think there may even be a causal relationship (which is further supported by the commonality of people linking to journalism stories as proof (in their minds) that something is necessarily true).
> Curious. I can see how that argument could be made but I think it's rather soft; that is, yes, certain persons on the internet have had a direct influence over me, personally, over the past few years; but I am not beholden to them.
Beholden: owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or a service.
Perhaps. But would you go so far as to state as a fact that you have zero(!) bias as a consequence of the consumption of journalism or conversations on social media?
> Indeed, I no longer consume content from some influencers that, just a year ago, I would have considered high on my list of reliable sources.
Excellent - have you achieved perfect rationality?
> This isn't to say that they're not worth listening to, rather, that I don't see how this hegemony functions in practice. Further, I'm not convinced there is a hegemonic order (as the OP seems to think there is). I think there's a different kind of order, but it's certainly not hegemonic (though it is hierarchical, after a fashion, mostly because people tend to naturally organize themselves into groups with a hierarchy).
Do you form any particular conclusions as a consequence? Or: what epistemic status do you assign to the speculative proposition?
>> All humans view reality through various biased lenses
> True; but this fact has little bearing on the point I was making.
That your considerations here are biased by your lenses may have at least some relevance - "has little bearing" is your perception of what is true...but is it actually true?
> Unless you want to argue that a left-leaning bias is somehow equivalent to a right-leaning one . . . which is patently absurd, on its face, if we take the time to understand what the Left and Right (as political platforms go) actually believe.
The "both sides" algorithm seems to have been very broadly distributed - I often wonder if this is purely organic.
>> And if you are unable to explain it to a conservative thinker, do you know (as opposed to believe) that the problem is 100% on the receiving end?
> I do.
Excellent - please present your proof.
> Because I've been explaining these concepts to people for a long time. And I've found that, when someone refuses to understand the basics, it's usually because of a deeply held conviction (i.e. bias) about how the world works.
Ah, I see what's going on: your proof is your self-perception.
DrakBalek t1_iwhy6rp wrote
Ah, I see what's going on here: you're taking a centrist, "both sides" approach to a conversation about perception and reality.
It's a position that only serves to enable and embolden the worst antisocial elements of our society.
No, I won't be presenting "proof," as I'm quite confident you won't accept anything as such, regardless of how accurate or well reasoned it is.
Good day.
iiioiia t1_iwhz287 wrote
> Ah, I see what's going on here: you're taking a centrist, "both sides" approach to a conversation about perception and reality.
No, that is your perception/model of what is going on, powered by the broadly distributed "both sides" algorithm.
> It's a position that only serves to enable and embolden the worst antisocial elements of our society.
What if you have it literally backwards?
> No, I won't be presenting "proof," as I'm quite confident you won't accept anything as such, regardless of how accurate or well reasoned it is.
Also because no proof exists - thus, it is a belief.
> > > > Good day.
Good day to you as well.
deportedtwo t1_iwdbuj8 wrote
This is a blog post, not an argument.
It really doesn't amount to much more than "I choose to call this behavior 'liberal.' Therefore, any criticism I levy against that behavior can be levied against anything else I call 'liberal.'"
You'll get more upvotes in /r/conservative than you will anywhere else. This just ain't rigorous thinking. It's really not much more than a well-to-do white dude whining and trying to name drop Popper for legitimacy as is, sorry.
edit: if you can answer the following questions, there might be a discussion in there somewhere:
-
What is your definition of "intolerance"? "Tolerance"?
-
What is your definition of "liberalism"?
-
Explain why you feel justified in claiming that "certain liberal values have achieved hegemony," and why you think that's a bad thing.
HereticGospel t1_iwg6v7b wrote
Did you consider the diagnosis “well-to-do white dude” to be rigorous thinking? Just looks like racism to me. It’s also a bit odd that you’d project that upvotes is the end he seeks in a philosophy sub. That “ain’t” rigorous thinking either. You should do some introspective analysis sometime there Pascal.
breadandbuttercreek t1_iwdz47f wrote
This is classic straw man stuff. The defining thing about liberals is the diversity of ideas and opinions. Politically it makes them very vulnerable and hard to organise, but you can't lump them all together like this.
iiioiia t1_iwgyb5h wrote
> The defining thing about liberals is the diversity of ideas and opinions.
Relative to conservatives maybe, but conservatives aren't exactly known for their deep thinking.
comradetao t1_iwfd8c6 wrote
Look, I know this is a philosophy forum and I don't want to get into politics, but your "The defining thing about liberals..." remark made me actually laugh.
fencerman t1_iwdogik wrote
From the blog:
> David Campanale, a parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats and a Christian, has been deselected following his desire to reduce abortion time limits.
>I regard this as an act of intolerance
Okay, but that would be utterly wrong.
"Running as a candidate for a political party" by definition requires agreement with the political positions of that party. That is literally a qualifying requirement for that position. If you can't support the party's platform, they should remove you as a candidate.
If you joined the Conservative party and then said you had a religious commitment to nationalizing British Airways, when they dismiss you as a candidate it wouldn't be an act of intolerance. You disqualified yourself from running as a candidate by opposing a core political position that the party stands for.
All of the examples in the blog post follow that pattern - losing some privilege because of intolerant, unprofessional or discriminatory behaviour isn't a violation of anyone's rights. It's a natural consequence of someone choosing to disqualify themselves from being able to fill a particular role.
Meta_Digital t1_iwd88br wrote
> When the values of self-expression and dignity are hegemonic, liberal tolerance seems to erode, implying that liberalism is becoming something else.
It seems to me that liberalism died 40 years ago and lives on as "neoliberalism", a market logic form of thinking about politics and ethics and everything else, and that analysis of liberalism today amounts to an analysis of a decomposed corpse. That is, what we're seeing today isn't liberalism at all, but its successor.
DrakBalek t1_iwd8ixb wrote
Zombified liberalism?
Makes sense, capitalism is basically a shambling corpse at this point, dead and decaying and obvious to anyone paying attention, but still barely able to pass itself off as alive and healthy to the general public.
Meta_Digital t1_iwdhp3c wrote
I've seen it referred to as essentially zombified, actually. This is essentially what David Harvey argues in his A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
The source of the rot is indeed capitalism, and that also happens to be the most dominant aspect of neoliberalism (and its current alternative, neofascism).
iiioiia t1_iwh0zh7 wrote
Did the author say anything about how government could be (but is not) a moderating force to minimize the harmful side effects of capitalism? Granted, one can blame the ineffectiveness of government on being compromised by capitalist forces (it seems extremely true to me), but then do the people who continue to unthinkingly support "democracy" have no responsibility here? Do they expect capitalists to suddenly change their character?
/rant
Meta_Digital t1_iwh1znu wrote
Well, liberalism is built on capitalism to serve and maintain the capitalist system. Neoliberalism is a more extreme form of that. Many of the critiques of liberalism, from both the right and left, concern the capitalist aspect of those political ideologies. Not every critique realizes this, though, especially from the right.
For instance, intolerance is intertwined with exploitation. Capitalism needs exploitation, so it finds a source. Maybe that's black slaves, maybe it's women, maybe it's immigrants, etc. Once the source is found, racist, sexist, and other bigoted beliefs get reinforced and structurally integrated into law, thus perpetuating it. The thing spirals downward, and in the end, until the economic structure of society is addressed (or even acknowledged), the issue of tolerance remains unresolvable.
Ultimately, liberalism (and conservatism, an aesthetic variation of liberalism) cannot resolve this problem because it exists to serve capitalism. So here we are in a world where a lot of "tolerance" from both groups doesn't amount to much, whether its tolerance for oppressed groups or even each other. Tolerance isn't materially possible under capitalism, which depends on the exploitation of someone for its existence.
iiioiia t1_iwh4pjk wrote
> Capitalism needs exploitation
It may prefer it, but it can function without it.
> Once the source is found, racist, sexist, and other bigoted beliefs get reinforced and structurally integrated into law, thus perpetuating it.
Two can and do play at this game though.
> Ultimately, liberalism (and conservatism, an aesthetic variation of liberalism) cannot resolve this problem because it exists to serve capitalism. So here we are in a world where a lot of "tolerance" from both groups doesn't amount to much, whether its tolerance for oppressed groups or even each other.
Agree, but this is kind of my point: why does do people act as if there's nothing that can be done about it other than complain about evil capitalists and demand that "someone" does something about it? Did the author get into anything like this?
> Tolerance isn't materially possible under capitalism...
This seems unlikely. For example: is it not physically possible to start "taking out" prominent capitalists and see if that alters their attitudes a bit? I mean, they do indeed love money, but they may love living even more. And one might protest that killing is wrong, but are most people not pretty ok if not often downright enthusiastic about our military and geopolitical adventures overseas that result in the death of a lot of innocent people.
> ...which depends on the exploitation of someone for its existence.
It utilizes and benefits from it, but claims that it is necessary for its existence at all seem to be meme-based. Capitalism can be moderated, but if our society and the people within it choose to not even try, I think they share some of the guilt.
(Note: I'm not ranting at you personally but more so at the collective hive mind.)
Meta_Digital t1_iwh5y6f wrote
Capitalism is about profit extraction from private property. Can't do this without exploitation of at the very least natural resources, but this ends up extending to technology and workers because wealth is extracted out of them. That's the entire point of capitalism. Exploitation is defined as making less than you produce, which is another way of talking about wealth extraction. We might be able to limit exploitation, but it can never be eliminated under capitalism. And so as long as it continues, exploitation is a given, and this will always empower justifying ideologies for that exploitation.
The author doesn't get into this, but is complaining about the intolerance from liberals. This intolerance is real, but the reason for it's existence isn't just bad people. It's the way our society is materially structured.
iiioiia t1_iwhjdtw wrote
> That's the entire point of capitalism.
Technically, it is your perception of what the entire point of capitalism is.
I don't disagree that capitalism has many negative side effects, I am merely suggesting that we concern ourselves with accuracy of our beliefs and assignment of guilt - government could moderate capitalism, but capitalism itself is often the only entity taken into consideration.
An important question: does the government set school curriculum so as to keep the masses dumb, so capitalism can function without informed resistance? It is certainly plausible!
> We might be able to limit exploitation, but it can never be eliminated under capitalism. And so as long as it continues, exploitation is a given, and this will always empower justifying ideologies for that exploitation.
That future you're seeing: do you realize that it is virtualized?
> The author doesn't get into this, but is complaining about the intolerance from liberals. This intolerance is real, but the reason for it's existence isn't just bad people. It's the way our society is materially structured.
The metaphysical organization of our society (essentially: how people think, which generates the "reality" they consider) seems much more important to me.
Buddenbrooks t1_iwddich wrote
Hello,
Excuse me for my ignorance, but could you clarify the political situation you’re referencing? Not super familiar with British politics.
The man was “cancelled” for just expressing his opinion or because of his proposed policies?
Thank you 🙏
ThomasJP1983 OP t1_iwdedxj wrote
Accounts differ, but it seems that he was removed as a Liberal Democrats (a medium-sized UK liberal party) candidate because he supports tightening regulation on access to abortions.
Buddenbrooks t1_iwdfhrb wrote
Oh ok, and this is a speech issue?
ItisyouwhosaythatIam t1_iwdfq5p wrote
There aren't any conservative positions that are supported by the relevant scientific research.
iiioiia t1_iwh14uf wrote
Do you have any scientific studies to back up this rather bold and comprehensive claim?
ItisyouwhosaythatIam t1_iwkv2wk wrote
You can Google all these topics yourself for the proof.
Cutting taxes to grow the economy and increase tax revenue has never worked. It only increased the debt every time it's been tried. Likewise, trickle-down economics has no historical success. Whereas government economic stimulus given to the poor has proven effective, because they put it all into the economy by spending it.
More guns create more gun related crime and death, while gun restrictions have reduced them, historically.
Societies with legal safe abortion have better health outcomes for women and longer life expectancies.
Climate change has been proven to be caused by humans and needs to be addressed for the existential crisis that it is.
The big governments of socialist democracies in Scandinavia and Northern Europe report happier people because they are free from worry living in an interdependent society that provides the necessary Healthcare and Education that are bankrupting people here and enable entrepreneurs there.
Teaching our children the truth about our mistakes has created a generation of young people more engaged with their government ( recent voting turnout) who are motivated to stop making the mistakes of the past. It is a limited number of partisan parents and pundits who are worried about what the facts mean.
Isolationist immigration or economic policies have only worsened social and economic outcomes as measured by happiness and growth.
American policing has given us a record incarceration rate for people of color who are racially profiled. The system needs science based reform, not more of the same failed policies.
Any other issues of importance that I left out?
XiphosAletheria t1_iwp5uoa wrote
Most of these are not issues that involve science, and that you present them as if they are shows only your own misunderstanding of them.
>More guns create more gun related crime and death, while gun restrictions have reduced them, historically.
More cars create more car related deaths. So too more swimming pools create more swimming pool related deaths. That is not a reason to impose more restrictions on cars or swimming pools.
>Societies with legal safe abortion have better health outcomes for women and longer life expectancies.
Societies with slavery have better health outcomes and longer life expectancies for slave owners. That doesn't make slavery right.
>The big governments of socialist democracies in Scandinavia and Northern Europe report happier people because they are free from worry living in an interdependent society that provides the necessary Healthcare and Education that are bankrupting people here and enable entrepreneurs there.
Ah, so you think other countries should aim for higher levels of ethnic homogeneity, such as Denmark. And cull their population down to 14 people per square kilometer, to match Norway?
And so on.
iiioiia t1_iwlfu1d wrote
> You can Google all these topics yourself for the proof.
What sort of a Google search might one do to determine in an epistemically sound way that there are no conservative positions that are supported by the relevant scientific research?
> Cutting taxes to grow the economy...
"Conservative positions are often/usually dumb/self-serving/deceitful/etc" and "no conservative positions that are supported by the relevant scientific research" are different claims.
> Any other issues of importance that I left out?
Yes: evidence of your initial claim. An admission that you were speaking speculatively/hyperbolically would suffice.
redsparks2025 t1_iwe9gm7 wrote
There are a lot of empty words in the article as it relies on a perceived stereotype of what it is means to be "liberal".
Identifying people using their "Faith" to argue against "XYZ" does not fully try to understand what their real fears or concerns are.
Religion just like optimism (or hope) can cut off critical thinking and become an excuse to not think too deeply about death.
Also your own bias maybe (maybe) interfering in trying to understand the other person's opposing bias (or point of view) in any meaningful way and even relating to the other person as a fellow human being.
As I said at the begging there is a strong reliance of a perceived stereotype of what it is to be "liberal". Therefore the article maybe (Maybe) creating a straw man argument.
The Different Kinds of Straw ~ Sam O'Nella Academy ~ YouTube.
ItisyouwhosaythatIam t1_iwyzrlm wrote
First. Good point. I used the word "science" in place of "relevant school of academic study."
Cars and swimming pools ARE regulated for public safety. You need a four foot high fence around a pool. You need to pass 2 competency tests to get a drivers' license. You are required to wear a safety belt and not be under the influence of drugs. Now, we need laws that keep the most deadly weapons away from the most deadly people. It works everywhere else.
There is no data on the health of slave owners, especially because they were just rich people. Any rich person without slaves would live as long. Safe, legal abortion is better for society by every measure. Forcing poor women to have children they don't want just increases child poverty and crime and lowers education levels and life expectancies.
I didn't say "ethnic homogeneity" - you did. I'm talking about conservative bigotry and xenophobia manifest in the GQP immigration policy of "Let them die, but don't let them in!" We need better immigration policy, but the GQP keeps blocking it. We need the labor. They need work. Why lock them out? They aren't statistically more criminal. They are often the best citizens, and near half of them vote Republican. People are all equal. Who cares if America changes languages? Or if our culture becomes more hispanic? Doesn't that mean the people with the most merit were those you wanted to keep out?
Honestly, this is way more of my valuable time than you are worth. I won't be responding to you again.
_Philosophizing t1_iwdlms2 wrote
The reason why is that liberal progressive ideology is inescapably intolerant is that if promotes: accept everyone, tolerate every belief and religion and sexual orientation and self expression and perception of truth. But ultimately, nearly every belief system has some contradictions with others.
For example: to me someone with a coexist sticker isn’t being intolerant, because they are implying there can be multiple truths, and logic follows no absolute truth. I deem this intolerant to my belief that there is absolute truth.
VitriolicViolet t1_iwdpg49 wrote
luckily what is 'tolerant' is decided by group-think like all morality and ethics are.
people do not like it but popularity and might are what decide pretty much everything for all humanity.
_Philosophizing t1_iwdqbdb wrote
I fundamentally disagree that morality ethics and what should be tolerated is determined by group think. We all know the Natzis we’re wrong though their group think confirmed their ideology.
If we assume your statement though, that morality is determined by group think, who controls group think? The people with the loudest voice, the people who control media, the money, the famous. They heavily influence what the current group think mentality is and thereby determine what is moral. But this in my opinion is actually immoral, a horrible idea, and is intolerant of those who believe in absolute morality, namely the billions of religious people or maybe some agnostics who believe in absolute truth etc.
ThomasJP1983 OP t1_iwd3ghe wrote
‘In recent years, there have been extensive debates about liberal (in)tolerance, involving topics such as the right to hold controversial views and the right of businesses not to serve conservatives. Yet focus on individual cases tends to miss the point.
Whilst individual episodes will involve different rights and wrongs, the large number of cases means that irregularities will even themselves out.
There has been a restructuring of liberal incentives. In Western societies, liberal values of dignity and self-expression have become hegemonic, meaning that liberals have fewer incentives to advocate tolerance.
We may wonder whether liberalism without tolerance is credible, ideologies which are stripped of central elements becoming something else. Indeed, social justice ideology seems to have succeeded liberalism, perhaps spelling the end of liberalism as we know it.’
Janube t1_iwd63hk wrote
This makes a classic mistake (so classic, there's a phrase for the conundrum: the Tolerance Paradox) of presuming that tolerance itself is the end that is sought.
Tolerance is merely a means and is not a valuable thing on its own in a vacuum. We refuse to tolerate many things in society. That's why prisons exist. It's why any disincentivization structure exists.
Liberals (well, the ones who've given it any thought) aren't speaking of tolerance as though it's a value unto itself; they speak of it as the solution to a problem whereby someone who does no harm to others is being targeted and oppressed.
It's a clever rhetorical trick by opponents to obfuscate actual issues by turning the conversation away from their unjustifiable prejudice of innocent people to the liberals' justifiable prejudice of prejudiced people, an argument that obviously falls apart when examined with any depth at all. If we had to tolerate all evil in order to tolerate innocence, then society would literally either crumble or become ruthlessly libertarian/anarchic.
The whole conversation has to ethics the same rigor as Paschal's wager has to metaphysics.
VitriolicViolet t1_iwdo0kx wrote
>The whole conversation has to ethics the same rigor as Paschal's wager has to metaphysics.
ding ding ding.
deportedtwo t1_iwddic2 wrote
Perfect response :)
iiioiia t1_iwh1mpn wrote
> Liberals (well, the ones who've given it any thought) aren't speaking of tolerance as though it's a value unto itself; they speak of it as the solution to a problem whereby someone who does no harm to others is being targeted and oppressed. > > > > It's a clever rhetorical trick by opponents to obfuscate actual issues by turning the conversation away from their unjustifiable prejudice of innocent people to the liberals' justifiable prejudice of prejudiced people, an argument that obviously falls apart when examined with any depth at all.
It seems to me there's a bit of a rhetorical trick going on here as well, the notion that ~all "liberal" ideas are correct (and opposing ideas are incorrect), and all liberal people are flawless or at least superior thinkers. Of course, this wasn't explicitly asserted, and that's the power/trickiness of it.
Janube t1_iwhjywa wrote
Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha
iiioiia t1_iwhpk6m wrote
Even funnier is your inability to counter ideas you disagree with. You could prove my bold assertion incorrect in your reply, let's wait and see what happens.
From the sidebar: > > Argue your Position > > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. > > Be Respectful > > Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Is "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha" compliant with those guidelines?
Is "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha" the maximum of what you are capable of?
Janube t1_iwii2yx wrote
Mate, you didn't argue your position; you stated a claim and then folded your arms. That's why I laughed. Not even worth the time. I'll keep an eye here out of an abundance of generosity, but I'm blocking you if your response is anything except a cogent and complete argument.
iiioiia t1_iwiiqa4 wrote
> Mate, you didn't argue your position; you stated a claim and then folded your arms.
I guess we have that in common....two differences between us though:
-
I am willing to defend my claim, whereas we've seen what your defense of yours consists of: "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha".
-
you seem unable to answer simple questions
EDIT: followed up by blocking me, the sign of a true intellectual powerhouse.
ThomasJP1983 OP t1_iwd9xwl wrote
As I say in the article, Popper restricted the tolerance paradox to very authoritarian movements. Moreover, he recognized that broad interpretations of the paradox threatened liberal democracy. In my opinion, liberal interpretations are now too broad.
Janube t1_iwdc2iq wrote
"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Popper considered "intolerance of intolerance" as a response to be state-issued suppression and that the preferable alternative was the court of public opinion (and rational argumentation). IMO, it's clear here he's not just talking about strict authoritarianism. Especially given the phrase "any movement preaching intolerance..."
Call me when SJWs are stringing up conservatives to murder them and then we'll talk.
DrakBalek t1_iwdam6n wrote
>liberal interpretations are now too broad
Do you have examples?
Fishermans_Worf t1_iweo286 wrote
>As I say in the article, Popper restricted the tolerance paradox to very authoritarian movements.
And? There's extremely authoritarian and pervasive elements of our culture—like conservative Christianity. The blog post even opens with a defence of a Christian who want to impose their religion on others.
My faith demands abortion when it is appropriate. How can defending against a substantive attack against the free practice of my faith be intolerance without first applying that measure to initial attack?
A person can express anything they want—it doesn't mean people are going to like them. Belonging to organizations is a privilege reserved for those who play well with others.
VitriolicViolet t1_iwdp5j1 wrote
ok so how about conservatives and their interpretations?
you are on a philosophy sub you literally do not get to just ''one side'' this thing.
next both the paradox and ignoring it threaten society, so what is your point here? we have hard evidence of what happens when all speech is free (Nazi Germany) and what happens when no speech is free (North Korea).
conservatives sure love hierarchies and group think until the positions on the totem pole change.
frankly both conservatives and liberals are one and the same (i mean Liberalism is a conservative ideology ffs) and both seem more then happy to crush any and all peoples rights if it means they 'win'.
keep simping for the system that crushes us all (the enemy are the wealthy).
cameron339 t1_iwd844r wrote
I love how you solely focus on liberal's "intolerance" while saying nothing about conservative's intolerance. Your perspective is garbage.
Janube t1_iwdl4yw wrote
Exactly. When the conversation shifts from unjustifiable prejudice against minority demographics to justifiable prejudice against the former group, we lose track of the only important topic (since a cessation of unjustifiable prejudice leads directly to a cessation of that justifiable prejudice).
iiioiia t1_iwh1u8p wrote
Do you believe that all non-comprehensive, non-balanced perspectives are garbage?
BPhiloSkinner t1_iwdbzaj wrote
A perfectly tolerant society can tolerate all save the intolerant, and is therefore not perfectly tolerant.
A perfectly intolerant society cannot tolerate even itself, and so disappears up it's own Jeffries Tube.
(playlist. "Not one of Us" Peter Gabriel)
DrakBalek t1_iwdf4zh wrote
Why is it that liberals cannot escape intolerance?
I mean, that's the implication of this article, isn't it? That liberals can't escape intolerance; and moreover, that the author is going to tell us why this is the case.
But I don't think he does; and try as I might, I can't seem to figure out the answer.
>Despite these debates, it struck me that I almost never see liberals address the strongest case for the liberal intolerance hypothesis.
By "these debates," we mean "A politician took a position that their constituency disagreed with." Is this the "intolerance" the author is speaking about? If it is, it seems a disingenuous way to frame disagreement over a political issue. Are we going to argue that voters upset about a new tax law are engaging in "intolerant" behavior when they write their representative or attend a protest?
Is "intolerance" a new buzzword for right wing ideologues? I suppose it must be, since "the tolerant Left" has been a snide rejoinder* for some time now.
(*useful for when a right-wing pundit wants to shut down a conversation.)
>In Western countries, certain liberal values have achieved hegemony.
Really?
Which ones?
And how is this hegemony of ideas structured? Who decides where a given value falls within the hegemony?
Personally, I find a major problem with conservative and right-wing thinkers is that they tend to assume hierarchies are both natural and inevitable. This leads them to view the world through that rose-colored lens, where everything must be part of a hierarchy and if one group (or their ideas) gains recognition, it must be at the expense of another.
This simply is not true; but damned if we're going to successfully explain why it's not true to a conservative thinker.
>Traditionally, liberals champion dignity and self-expression, recently emphasizing the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities. As Western societies have become more affluent and secure, majorities have embraced these causes.
>
>Yet this creates a dilemma.
Why?
What is this dilemma? How does it manifest? What form does it take? How can we identify it when it's in front of us?
Or is the dilemma merely the fact that some people hold certain beliefs that the general public has decided (through their "hegemonic" practices, of course) to be unworthy of respect in polite society?
>... in ideological terms, I am not sure that liberalism will overcome this.
Overcome what? I still don't understand the problem this article is supposed to be illustrating.
>Broadly, ideologies and political movements adopt positions which suit groups, political space being predicated on inter-group competition and rewarding efficient groups.
Yes. Good. This is how political spaces are formed. I take issue with the "rewarding efficient groups" part, but mostly because defining "efficient" seems a critical step to understanding that sentence and we haven't done that; but even so, sure, this is a straight-forward factual observation.
>If incentive structures deter liberals from advocating tolerance, liberalism will struggle to counter this trend.
. . . and?
Wait, is this the answer to the question? Are we saying that "liberals cannot escape intolerance because the incentive structures in everyday social interactions discourage them from advocating for more tolerance?"
That's it, isn't it?
This entire article is a veiled rant about how people are being mean to the author on Twitter.