4 ms·

> "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins." People are free to dismiss and ignore those with other views than theirs, but what happe

> "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins." People are free to dismiss and ignore those with other views than theirs, but what happens when we can't even discuss things anymore? Today it seems you're on one side or the other and the response to someone who disagrees is just a wall of abuse and dismissal. We're all going more into our own silos. Am I the only one worried about this? Everyone should be allowed the same range of stages for their views but we're not really balanced at the moment. Did you watch the dismission by a lot of remain voters/press in the UK during the EU ref? The rhetoric was that those who wanted to leave are all bigoted racist small minded 'little englanders'. This kind of thing just makes both sides more extreme. I'm not sure what we can do about it. So much hate seems to be around.

zo1 10y ago
I think we're passed the golden age when it comes to free speech. A certain very left-leaning, anti-male, anti-traditional, anti-rich, anti-white, pro-immigration viewpoint has won. It dominates academic, media and public spheres. And those that question or disagree with it are very quickly attacked with a number of smears/names/slurs, etc. Some of the views that get attacked are genuinely okay. Perhaps the not most likable of ideas, but certainly not the type of hatred that they're portrayed as. The tragedy is that we're not allowing individuals to hold these opinions. E.g. Maintaining national culture/race/identity. A people should be allowed to want this without having every single talking-head of the media party assaulting them for wanting it. Unfortunately, it's a consequence of Democracy that forces opposing groups to occupy the same piece of land, instead of allowing like-minded groups to self-aggregate and group together.
- krapp 10y ago
  >E.g. Maintaining national culture/race/identity. A people should be allowed to want this without having every single talking-head of the media party assaulting them for wanting it. To be fair, there are historically valid justifications for that negative reception. People who advocate cultural and racial identity politics in the modern day shouldn't be surprised at the criticism they receive, as they themselves denounce the "certain very left-leaning, anti-male, anti-traditional, anti-rich, anti-white, pro-immigration viewpoints" of the mainstream.
  - zo1 10y ago
    Well sure, have some people taken those viewpoints to bad conclusions? Of course, and rightly we shouldn't allow such actions to take place at all. But, extermination, expulsion and interment are a far cry from what most people advocate when talking about maintaining their racial/cultural identity in the face of rampant immigration from disparate cultures. If anything, most of the time, people simply advocate that immigration should be made slow/mild enough to allow for assimilation. Yet, that exact same viewpoint gets them labeled "white supremacists" and "racists" with no further discussion or nuance.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- convolvatron 10y ago
  I think the line here is simple. It's not that people are being disallowed from having certain views, we're really talking about whether or not we want to spend the time and energy discussing them. And in the limit whether they should be made a matter of public policy. Its still the case that if you want to open a whites only compound in Montana, no one is going to stop you or even care. And I still think that if racists had something meaningful to say, that contributed in any way towards a considered discussion of real issues, that they would have more of a voice. As leftist as the academy is, if you make an honest point with teeth behind it, there are enough real thinkers they will feel compelled to engage with you. But you gotta step up to the plate man. You cant just blindly assert that brown people are robbing the pale people of their rightful place on the throne and expect everyone else to give your opinions equal consideration and time in the public forum.

zo1 10y ago

I think we're passed the golden age when it comes to free speech. A certain very left-leaning, anti-male, anti-traditional, anti-rich, anti-white, pro-immigration viewpoint has won. It dominates academic, media and public spheres. And those that question or disagree with it are very quickly attacked with a number of smears/names/slurs, etc. Some of the views that get attacked are genuinely okay. Perhaps the not most likable of ideas, but certainly not the type of hatred that they're portrayed as. The tragedy is that we're not allowing individuals to hold these opinions. E.g. Maintaining national culture/race/identity. A people should be allowed to want this without having every single talking-head of the media party assaulting them for wanting it. Unfortunately, it's a consequence of Democracy that forces opposing groups to occupy the same piece of land, instead of allowing like-minded groups to self-aggregate and group together.

krapp 10y ago
>E.g. Maintaining national culture/race/identity. A people should be allowed to want this without having every single talking-head of the media party assaulting them for wanting it. To be fair, there are historically valid justifications for that negative reception. People who advocate cultural and racial identity politics in the modern day shouldn't be surprised at the criticism they receive, as they themselves denounce the "certain very left-leaning, anti-male, anti-traditional, anti-rich, anti-white, pro-immigration viewpoints" of the mainstream.
- zo1 10y ago
  Well sure, have some people taken those viewpoints to bad conclusions? Of course, and rightly we shouldn't allow such actions to take place at all. But, extermination, expulsion and interment are a far cry from what most people advocate when talking about maintaining their racial/cultural identity in the face of rampant immigration from disparate cultures. If anything, most of the time, people simply advocate that immigration should be made slow/mild enough to allow for assimilation. Yet, that exact same viewpoint gets them labeled "white supremacists" and "racists" with no further discussion or nuance.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
convolvatron 10y ago
I think the line here is simple. It's not that people are being disallowed from having certain views, we're really talking about whether or not we want to spend the time and energy discussing them. And in the limit whether they should be made a matter of public policy. Its still the case that if you want to open a whites only compound in Montana, no one is going to stop you or even care. And I still think that if racists had something meaningful to say, that contributed in any way towards a considered discussion of real issues, that they would have more of a voice. As leftist as the academy is, if you make an honest point with teeth behind it, there are enough real thinkers they will feel compelled to engage with you. But you gotta step up to the plate man. You cant just blindly assert that brown people are robbing the pale people of their rightful place on the throne and expect everyone else to give your opinions equal consideration and time in the public forum.