6 ms·

> It's intolerance against disagreement When you dress it up abstractly, sure. When you realize the arguments we're intolerant of are actually probably aren't

> It's intolerance against disagreement When you dress it up abstractly, sure. When you realize the arguments we're intolerant of are actually probably aren't that defensible, it doesn't. What ideas are we intolerant of that you think is so bad? That being gay is immoral? That women shouldn't have access to reproductive health services?

smsm42 10y ago
It's not abstract. Look what happens in campuses. > When you realize the arguments we're intolerant of are actually probably aren't that defensible, it doesn't. There aren't that many arguments which are not defensible, at least to some measure. And even with them, if they are so weak, you can easily defeat them - with your superior argument. That's not what happens in the current left culture. The focus is not on presenting superior argument, but on excluding the possibility of the supposedly inferior one from being voiced, and if it is voiced - on hounding the offended out of the position in which they would be able to present any argument at all, usually by authoritarian means (firing them, cutting off their access to publishing, depriving them of means to publish their opinion, etc.). > That women shouldn't have access to reproductive health services? Note how you frame the argument in terms that suit you. Would a conservative really think that women should not have access to health services? Or maybe - consider it for a minute - they do not see e.g. abortion as a "health service", but instead some of them see it, for example, as a murder? Now, you may disagree with them - that's completely fine - but if you want to argue with their position, would it be useful to argue with their actual position instead of one invented for them? Now that question above is not rhetorical, and the answer to it is not obvious. Because that depends on your goal. If you want to construct superior argument which would be rationally convincing - the answer is yes, understanding the actual opposing argument is vital. However, if you want to paint your opponent as an idiot, bigot or caveman - in order, for example, to convince an authority that they should not be considered rational beings and thus their concerns can be dismissed and it is morally permissible to subjugate their will to yours, as a superior being - then understanding their argument and even admitting a possibility that their argument can be understood and is not just an incomprehensible blathering only superficially resembling human speech - is of course a wrong tactics which would do absolutely no good. Again, your actions here depend on your goal. And my claim is the left right now is virtually 100% invested in the second goal and behaves accordingly. I can understand why it is - the road of forcing your opponent to do what you like seems easier - I just think it's both morally wrong and disastrous in the long term, as as soon as two sides start playing this game - and they certainly already started - the possibility of having rational discourse which can discover the truth or at least get us closer to it is lost, and what we get is a series of shouting matches, in which truth doesn't matter and isn't even part of the calculus anymore.
- ebola1717 10y ago
  Look, if someone thinks women shouldn't have the right to have an abortion if they choose, you're right, I am not going to tolerate that debate. I don't believe there is a debate. I'm sure there are a lot of topics you don't think are up for debate. We all have our lines in the sand.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Look, if someone thinks women shouldn't have the right to have an abortion if they choose, you're right, I am not going to tolerate that debate. I don't believe there is a debate. Which is you being intolerant of other viewpoints. Let me actually make one of the counterarguments in case you've made up your mind without having heard them all. Suppose there is a family willing to adopt (who wants children but can't have them), and there is a way for someone other than the biological mother to carry the fetus to term (surrogacy, some new technology, etc.) In this context you've lost all the arguments about forcing the mother to do anything, because you're going to remove the fetus, the only question remaining is whether the mother then has the right to insist that the fetus die when there exists the ability to save its life. Some evil Republicans come along and say no. Don't you at least want to practice countering that argument, so when the day comes that the hypothetical technology exists you'll know what to say? > I'm sure there are a lot of topics you don't think are up for debate. We all have our lines in the sand. There are people who are willing to debate anything.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    We do. Yours just happen to be very tight circle around your opinion. It can be anything but it is not toerance.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Relevant reading: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo... http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric... There are wrong things that most conservatives believe, and wrong things that some loud conservatives believe, but that doesn't get you anywhere near the point where all conservatives are wrong about everything.

smsm42 10y ago

It's not abstract. Look what happens in campuses. > When you realize the arguments we're intolerant of are actually probably aren't that defensible, it doesn't. There aren't that many arguments which are not defensible, at least to some measure. And even with them, if they are so weak, you can easily defeat them - with your superior argument. That's not what happens in the current left culture. The focus is not on presenting superior argument, but on excluding the possibility of the supposedly inferior one from being voiced, and if it is voiced - on hounding the offended out of the position in which they would be able to present any argument at all, usually by authoritarian means (firing them, cutting off their access to publishing, depriving them of means to publish their opinion, etc.). > That women shouldn't have access to reproductive health services? Note how you frame the argument in terms that suit you. Would a conservative really think that women should not have access to health services? Or maybe - consider it for a minute - they do not see e.g. abortion as a "health service", but instead some of them see it, for example, as a murder? Now, you may disagree with them - that's completely fine - but if you want to argue with their position, would it be useful to argue with their actual position instead of one invented for them? Now that question above is not rhetorical, and the answer to it is not obvious. Because that depends on your goal. If you want to construct superior argument which would be rationally convincing - the answer is yes, understanding the actual opposing argument is vital. However, if you want to paint your opponent as an idiot, bigot or caveman - in order, for example, to convince an authority that they should not be considered rational beings and thus their concerns can be dismissed and it is morally permissible to subjugate their will to yours, as a superior being - then understanding their argument and even admitting a possibility that their argument can be understood and is not just an incomprehensible blathering only superficially resembling human speech - is of course a wrong tactics which would do absolutely no good. Again, your actions here depend on your goal. And my claim is the left right now is virtually 100% invested in the second goal and behaves accordingly. I can understand why it is - the road of forcing your opponent to do what you like seems easier - I just think it's both morally wrong and disastrous in the long term, as as soon as two sides start playing this game - and they certainly already started - the possibility of having rational discourse which can discover the truth or at least get us closer to it is lost, and what we get is a series of shouting matches, in which truth doesn't matter and isn't even part of the calculus anymore.

ebola1717 10y ago
Look, if someone thinks women shouldn't have the right to have an abortion if they choose, you're right, I am not going to tolerate that debate. I don't believe there is a debate. I'm sure there are a lot of topics you don't think are up for debate. We all have our lines in the sand.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Look, if someone thinks women shouldn't have the right to have an abortion if they choose, you're right, I am not going to tolerate that debate. I don't believe there is a debate. Which is you being intolerant of other viewpoints. Let me actually make one of the counterarguments in case you've made up your mind without having heard them all. Suppose there is a family willing to adopt (who wants children but can't have them), and there is a way for someone other than the biological mother to carry the fetus to term (surrogacy, some new technology, etc.) In this context you've lost all the arguments about forcing the mother to do anything, because you're going to remove the fetus, the only question remaining is whether the mother then has the right to insist that the fetus die when there exists the ability to save its life. Some evil Republicans come along and say no. Don't you at least want to practice countering that argument, so when the day comes that the hypothetical technology exists you'll know what to say? > I'm sure there are a lot of topics you don't think are up for debate. We all have our lines in the sand. There are people who are willing to debate anything.
- smsm42 10y ago
  We do. Yours just happen to be very tight circle around your opinion. It can be anything but it is not toerance.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

Relevant reading: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo... http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric... There are wrong things that most conservatives believe, and wrong things that some loud conservatives believe, but that doesn't get you anywhere near the point where all conservatives are wrong about everything.