3 ms·

You are rather proposing a vast curtailment of personal freedom, according to your personal interpretation of reified "democratic and humanist values" -- an ext

You are rather proposing a vast curtailment of personal freedom, according to your personal interpretation of reified "democratic and humanist values" -- an extremely vague and nebulous concept that, once stripped of the layers of indirection and obfuscation, amounts to nothing more than "what I personally happen to think constitutes good and proper behavior." Moreover, you propose that not only the government, but also private entitites ought to be so regulated by your own arbitrary philosophical restrictions, a sort of Dead Kennedys "California Über Alles"-esque oppressive police state that not only promotes but mandates a particular narrow interpretation of liberal values. This is no different in character from any other totalitarian dictatorship, though the exact set of values you advocate differs to a greater or lesser extent. They've all always thought of themselves as "good" and "moral" and "proper," all sought to improve society and remodel others' thinking by force and coercion, and always in the name of "ensuring justice."

stcredzero 11y ago
You are rather proposing a vast curtailment of personal freedom, according to your personal interpretation of reified "democratic and humanist values" -- an extremely vague and nebulous concept Not at all nebulous. Members of an intellectual, tolerant, multicultural society tolerate all those they practically can, and seek to talk to convince and listen to learn. Members of intolerant groups seek to silence, shun, and otherwise punish their perceived enemies. It's quite intuitive, commonsense, and plain as day. private entitites ought to be so regulated by your own arbitrary philosophical restrictions Really, I'd much rather that society at large understood these distinctions of philosophical and emotional self awareness, and enacted them of their own free will. This is why I make such comments. I'm trying to convince people that the freedom to act like a uber-jerk to people you don't like isn't an obligation to do so. Also, it's generally a bad idea. This is no different in character from any other totalitarian dictatorship Very different. There's a lot more listening and talking involved, and far fewer dictates. What's more like a dictatorship? Someone advocating for tolerance, or someone angrily insisting on their right to excommunicate people? In any case, thanks for revealing in what direction you're emotionally invested.
- pjlegato 11y ago
  Please refrain from speculating about what my emotional investments may or may not be, and any other personal speculation, as that is not at all relevant to the discussion. You have been making moral assertions in your original post on how private businesses ought to act, in order to be considered "good". This is not fundamentally different in character than any other moral sermonizing of the past, though the exact specific values you advocate may differ. If you were ever to attain political power, it would not be different than any other oppressive dictatorship in history, all of whom thought they were simply trying to educate people on how to be "good". Your position is, further, intrinsically hypocritical and self-contradictory. "A multicultural, inclusive society cannot tolerate intolerance, by definition" is a logical paradox. You either tolerate others, including those who are different from you, or you don't. That necessarily extends to people you disagree with, people whose values you personally abhor, etc. Your position amounts to "Everyone should be tolerated, except those whom I don't personally like," burnished by yes, nice-sounding but vague and nebulous handwaving about multiculturalism, tolerance, "philosophical and emotional self awareness", "listening and talking," and so on, the various shibboleths of the California bourgeois soft-left that developed in the 1970s. You even seek to arrogate intellectualism itself to your cause, implying that those who disagree with you are simply ignorant, unenlightened cretins who have not yet been properly educated. I'm all for people not being jerks, but there is this profoundly arrogant and fundamentally misconceived notion inherent in what you write, that people are jerks simply because they don't know any better, because none of the enlightened educated kindhearted intellectuals has ever condescended to educate them during a kindergarten "teachable moment" of some sort about how being a jerk is actually wrong and, well, really mean and given them the opportunity to "listen to learn." That whole attitude is pure unbridled pomposity and sheer arrogance. It's not the case. Society is not perfectable, and attempts to perfect it through coercion have invariably resulted in suffering and oppression. There will always be jerks in the world, no matter how many kindhearted liberals generously condescend to try to convince them otherwise. The exact form of their jerkdom will simply change to suit the new conditions. Finally, here is the main difference between us: I don't mind at all if you believe all this stuff. Believe anything you like personally. I am happy to talk and explain my position, but I don't think there's any value in convincing you to change your mind, and that is not my goal, even though I disagree with you on many points. I accept that you are a different person with different views. You, on the other hand, believe you have some holy sacred task to go around teaching people about how their existing ways are wicked and evil, and how they ought to change to conform to your personal views, and to the views of those like you. You're a classical missionary, only updated for the postmodern age, now without Jesus and with multiculturalism and so on instead. As I said, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise, even though I disagree with this schema (though I'm happy to discuss.) The problem is that your preaching has extended beyond the confines of your personal space, at which point it is no longer your personal matter but now a matter for public society. You believe you have a mission to spread your views to society at large, to coerce others to adapt to your personal view of "the good." That's the problem. That sort of thing has always, always ended badly in history.
keymone 11y ago
Could you start from something you think constitutes a horrible set of moral values and social standards and work your way to whatever you think is not vague and nebulous like "democratic and humanistic"? Like start with Hitler or Stalin and explain hiw what they did was bad and what would you do better?

stcredzero 11y ago

You are rather proposing a vast curtailment of personal freedom, according to your personal interpretation of reified "democratic and humanist values" -- an extremely vague and nebulous concept Not at all nebulous. Members of an intellectual, tolerant, multicultural society tolerate all those they practically can, and seek to talk to convince and listen to learn. Members of intolerant groups seek to silence, shun, and otherwise punish their perceived enemies. It's quite intuitive, commonsense, and plain as day. private entitites ought to be so regulated by your own arbitrary philosophical restrictions Really, I'd much rather that society at large understood these distinctions of philosophical and emotional self awareness, and enacted them of their own free will. This is why I make such comments. I'm trying to convince people that the freedom to act like a uber-jerk to people you don't like isn't an obligation to do so. Also, it's generally a bad idea. This is no different in character from any other totalitarian dictatorship Very different. There's a lot more listening and talking involved, and far fewer dictates. What's more like a dictatorship? Someone advocating for tolerance, or someone angrily insisting on their right to excommunicate people? In any case, thanks for revealing in what direction you're emotionally invested.

pjlegato 11y ago
Please refrain from speculating about what my emotional investments may or may not be, and any other personal speculation, as that is not at all relevant to the discussion. You have been making moral assertions in your original post on how private businesses ought to act, in order to be considered "good". This is not fundamentally different in character than any other moral sermonizing of the past, though the exact specific values you advocate may differ. If you were ever to attain political power, it would not be different than any other oppressive dictatorship in history, all of whom thought they were simply trying to educate people on how to be "good". Your position is, further, intrinsically hypocritical and self-contradictory. "A multicultural, inclusive society cannot tolerate intolerance, by definition" is a logical paradox. You either tolerate others, including those who are different from you, or you don't. That necessarily extends to people you disagree with, people whose values you personally abhor, etc. Your position amounts to "Everyone should be tolerated, except those whom I don't personally like," burnished by yes, nice-sounding but vague and nebulous handwaving about multiculturalism, tolerance, "philosophical and emotional self awareness", "listening and talking," and so on, the various shibboleths of the California bourgeois soft-left that developed in the 1970s. You even seek to arrogate intellectualism itself to your cause, implying that those who disagree with you are simply ignorant, unenlightened cretins who have not yet been properly educated. I'm all for people not being jerks, but there is this profoundly arrogant and fundamentally misconceived notion inherent in what you write, that people are jerks simply because they don't know any better, because none of the enlightened educated kindhearted intellectuals has ever condescended to educate them during a kindergarten "teachable moment" of some sort about how being a jerk is actually wrong and, well, really mean and given them the opportunity to "listen to learn." That whole attitude is pure unbridled pomposity and sheer arrogance. It's not the case. Society is not perfectable, and attempts to perfect it through coercion have invariably resulted in suffering and oppression. There will always be jerks in the world, no matter how many kindhearted liberals generously condescend to try to convince them otherwise. The exact form of their jerkdom will simply change to suit the new conditions. Finally, here is the main difference between us: I don't mind at all if you believe all this stuff. Believe anything you like personally. I am happy to talk and explain my position, but I don't think there's any value in convincing you to change your mind, and that is not my goal, even though I disagree with you on many points. I accept that you are a different person with different views. You, on the other hand, believe you have some holy sacred task to go around teaching people about how their existing ways are wicked and evil, and how they ought to change to conform to your personal views, and to the views of those like you. You're a classical missionary, only updated for the postmodern age, now without Jesus and with multiculturalism and so on instead. As I said, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise, even though I disagree with this schema (though I'm happy to discuss.) The problem is that your preaching has extended beyond the confines of your personal space, at which point it is no longer your personal matter but now a matter for public society. You believe you have a mission to spread your views to society at large, to coerce others to adapt to your personal view of "the good." That's the problem. That sort of thing has always, always ended badly in history.

keymone 11y ago

Could you start from something you think constitutes a horrible set of moral values and social standards and work your way to whatever you think is not vague and nebulous like "democratic and humanistic"? Like start with Hitler or Stalin and explain hiw what they did was bad and what would you do better?