6 ms·

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

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.

stcredzero 11y ago
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 I rather see this like the idea that business deals should be mutually beneficial, that dealings should be honest, and that companies should be transparent. You are free to disagree of course, but what I'm advocating is fundamentally about cooperation and mutual benefit. It doesn't have to be moralizing, as it's supported by the mathematics of cooperation and the non-zero sum game as well as by the lessons of the long arc of history. Your position amounts to "Everyone should be tolerated, except those whom I don't personally like," To be precise, my position is that everyone should be tolerated, so long as they behave civilly. This means they should be accorded the same rights as anyone else, and that those should be held sacrosanct, until it's no longer practical to do so. This is how I'd like to be treated, so this is how I advocate how everyone else should treat people. 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 find that I never have to do that. Pretty much, those who are ignorant quickly reveal themselves to the world. There is objective truth and knowledge of real value. Ignorance is obvious to real experts. I've been on both sides of this equation. If one is prostrate to the truth, then rebuttals to opponents simply write themselves. Largely, they just consist of paraphrases or 1 or 2 logical steps. 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. On this we agree. No person is God or an oracle or otherwise infallible. This is why acting quickly is often a bad idea and acting from outrage is especially so. This is why the working assumption should always be that one is never in command of all the relevant facts. Hence: due process. 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. I'm against coercion. That's my whole point. Don't coerce -- Convince! Humanist values have always ended badly in history? The USA has problems, but there are many wonderful things it has achieved. I'm still betting on that horse.

stcredzero 11y ago

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 I rather see this like the idea that business deals should be mutually beneficial, that dealings should be honest, and that companies should be transparent. You are free to disagree of course, but what I'm advocating is fundamentally about cooperation and mutual benefit. It doesn't have to be moralizing, as it's supported by the mathematics of cooperation and the non-zero sum game as well as by the lessons of the long arc of history. Your position amounts to "Everyone should be tolerated, except those whom I don't personally like," To be precise, my position is that everyone should be tolerated, so long as they behave civilly. This means they should be accorded the same rights as anyone else, and that those should be held sacrosanct, until it's no longer practical to do so. This is how I'd like to be treated, so this is how I advocate how everyone else should treat people. 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 find that I never have to do that. Pretty much, those who are ignorant quickly reveal themselves to the world. There is objective truth and knowledge of real value. Ignorance is obvious to real experts. I've been on both sides of this equation. If one is prostrate to the truth, then rebuttals to opponents simply write themselves. Largely, they just consist of paraphrases or 1 or 2 logical steps. 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. On this we agree. No person is God or an oracle or otherwise infallible. This is why acting quickly is often a bad idea and acting from outrage is especially so. This is why the working assumption should always be that one is never in command of all the relevant facts. Hence: due process. 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. I'm against coercion. That's my whole point. Don't coerce -- Convince! Humanist values have always ended badly in history? The USA has problems, but there are many wonderful things it has achieved. I'm still betting on that horse.