5 ms·

Why do you think they're ignorant/backwards?

by ue_ 9y ago

wutbrodo 9y ago
EDIT: I see that you've been down voted and I just want to make it clear that I didn't do that: I appreciate your polite question, especially in response to my insultingly phrased initial statement. Ha, it was pretty late when I wrote that; the language is probably a little harsher than I would use right now. I'm pretty deeply concerned by how rapidly my social and political circles have decided that the foundations of post-Enlightenment peaceful pluralistic society should be discarded in favor of short-term political wins. Concepts like a free marketplace of ideas are pretty remarkable social technologies; spend five minutes reading the history of literally anywhere at literally any time and compare it to the functioning of a liberal society, and it should be obvious how valuable these norms are. For some reason, people now assume that peaceful, orderly transfers of power are somehow natural in human societies and don't take the sometimes-difficult work of adhering to these norms. It's a hugely childish, short-sighted approach to the world to throw away one of mankind's greatest achievements because you can't be bothered to understand why they're there. Concepts like the marketplace of ideas don't have exceptions like "except for people who are wrong", because that presupposes the ability to judge your opponents' views as wrong (spoiler: everyone thinks their ideological opponents are wrong. that's what the word opponent means). This isn't a simplistically universal rule, as exceptions for things like directly advocating violence are generally accepted as part of the principle. But the minute you start stretching that to "but their views are _basically_ the same thing as advocating violence because [insert personal interpretation]", you're only pretending to be tolerant and you've opened the door for anybody to decide that anything is violence, as long as they can provide their own twisted interpretation of your views. It's not fun to defend the right of people to march with Nazi flags, but there's no way to avoid doing so without eroding the norms that protect far more important views. It's a sick joke that the most regressive among us these days are the ones who pretend to care for the marginalized: history tells us exactly who the burden of suppressed speech falls on in the long run (hint: it's not those with power and influence).
- ue_ 9y ago
  >peaceful pluralistic society should be discarded in favor of short-term political wins. I don't think that's a fair characterisation given the post-WWII attempt to truly be discarded of these pernicious racist ideas which some try to suppress today. I don't think that it's enough to stick with such post-Enlightenment ideas if it means defending the right for people who advocate genocide to speak. >Concepts like a free marketplace of ideas are pretty remarkable social technologies They would be if they truly existed, but they exist only in the mind of their proponents and almost nobody else. It's sort of funny how even when we talk about ideas we're relating them to markets, a sign, to me, that ideas are these kind of things that you buy and sell and trade, like figurative commodities. >people now assume that peaceful, orderly transfers of power are somehow natural in human societies and don't take the sometimes-difficult work of adhering to these norms I don't know why people assume that. Capitalism came into this world 'head to toe in blood' as Marx put it, for example. >throw away one of mankind's greatest achievements because you can't be bothered to understand why they're there. If you're referring to empowering Nazis to say what they want as being one of man's greatest achievements, I don't agree. >presupposes the ability to judge your opponents' views as wrong I have no qualms about saying that the view of genocide of innocent people beacuse of their skin colour, religious heritage or opinions is wrong, just as I am fine saying that the view of FGM is wrong, or the view of child rape is wrong. >but there's no way to avoid doing so without eroding the norms that protect far more important views. I disagree, for me important views almost wholly contain the pursuit of justice and the elimination of unjust hierarchy - something which can be pursued without letting Nazis have their say. >It's a sick joke that the most regressive among us these days are the ones who pretend to care for the marginalized I disagree; refusing to tolerate regressive views is exactly what makes such people progressive, in realising the futility and backwardness of certain views. I find it quite funny the little play here; Nazis say they want to kill people. Liberals reply with "I don't like that, but I'll defend to your death the right to say it". The Left says "These things shoudn't be said." and suddenly it's the Left who are regressive. The people who say this may also believe the Jews could have been saved had they only debated the Nazis. Holocaust survivors tell a different story. >you're only pretending to be tolerant There's a wonderful essay about 'tolerance' by Marcuse, it's very biased. Its core thesis is that we should be intolerant of those views on the right. And I think that it makes the convincing case of permitting tolerance of Left struggles and not permitting Right struggles - because of the character of the struggle, the character must be subversive, for in tolerance then even subversive character must be tolerated. This subversive character has prevailed where there was before no tolerance for it, and indeed it should prevail, if history is to go by, where there is tolerance for it. I have four quotes from it listed below, if you will bear with me, though the essay makes sense in whole, here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetole... >The liberating force of democracy was the chance it gave to effective dissent, on the individual as well as social scale, its openness to qualitatively different forms of government, of culture, education, work--of the human existence in general. The toleration of free discussion and the equal right of opposites was to define and clarify the different forms of dissent: their direction, content, prospect. But with the concentration of economic and political power and the integration of opposites in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination, effective dissent is blocked where it could freely emerge; in the formation of opinion, in information and communication, in speech and assembly. >Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. >Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: 'fire'. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War. >However, the alternative to the established semi-democratic process [in the US] is not a dictatorship or elite, no matter how intellectual and intelligent, but the struggle for a real democracy. Part of this struggle is the fight against an ideology of tolerance which, in reality, favors and fortifies the conservation of the status quo of inequality and discrimination. For this struggle, I proposed the practice of discriminating tolerance.

Why do you think they're ignorant/backwards?

by ue_ 9y ago

Why do you think they're ignorant/backwards?

EDIT: I see that you've been down voted and I just want to make it clear that I didn't do that: I appreciate your polite question, especially in response to my insultingly phrased initial statement. Ha, it was pretty late when I wrote that; the language is probably a little harsher than I would use right now. I'm pretty deeply concerned by how rapidly my social and political circles have decided that the foundations of post-Enlightenment peaceful pluralistic society should be discarded in favor of short-term political wins. Concepts like a free marketplace of ideas are pretty remarkable social technologies; spend five minutes reading the history of literally anywhere at literally any time and compare it to the functioning of a liberal society, and it should be obvious how valuable these norms are. For some reason, people now assume that peaceful, orderly transfers of power are somehow natural in human societies and don't take the sometimes-difficult work of adhering to these norms. It's a hugely childish, short-sighted approach to the world to throw away one of mankind's greatest achievements because you can't be bothered to understand why they're there. Concepts like the marketplace of ideas don't have exceptions like "except for people who are wrong", because that presupposes the ability to judge your opponents' views as wrong (spoiler: everyone thinks their ideological opponents are wrong. that's what the word opponent means). This isn't a simplistically universal rule, as exceptions for things like directly advocating violence are generally accepted as part of the principle. But the minute you start stretching that to "but their views are _basically_ the same thing as advocating violence because [insert personal interpretation]", you're only pretending to be tolerant and you've opened the door for anybody to decide that anything is violence, as long as they can provide their own twisted interpretation of your views. It's not fun to defend the right of people to march with Nazi flags, but there's no way to avoid doing so without eroding the norms that protect far more important views. It's a sick joke that the most regressive among us these days are the ones who pretend to care for the marginalized: history tells us exactly who the burden of suppressed speech falls on in the long run (hint: it's not those with power and influence).

ue_ 9y ago
>peaceful pluralistic society should be discarded in favor of short-term political wins. I don't think that's a fair characterisation given the post-WWII attempt to truly be discarded of these pernicious racist ideas which some try to suppress today. I don't think that it's enough to stick with such post-Enlightenment ideas if it means defending the right for people who advocate genocide to speak. >Concepts like a free marketplace of ideas are pretty remarkable social technologies They would be if they truly existed, but they exist only in the mind of their proponents and almost nobody else. It's sort of funny how even when we talk about ideas we're relating them to markets, a sign, to me, that ideas are these kind of things that you buy and sell and trade, like figurative commodities. >people now assume that peaceful, orderly transfers of power are somehow natural in human societies and don't take the sometimes-difficult work of adhering to these norms I don't know why people assume that. Capitalism came into this world 'head to toe in blood' as Marx put it, for example. >throw away one of mankind's greatest achievements because you can't be bothered to understand why they're there. If you're referring to empowering Nazis to say what they want as being one of man's greatest achievements, I don't agree. >presupposes the ability to judge your opponents' views as wrong I have no qualms about saying that the view of genocide of innocent people beacuse of their skin colour, religious heritage or opinions is wrong, just as I am fine saying that the view of FGM is wrong, or the view of child rape is wrong. >but there's no way to avoid doing so without eroding the norms that protect far more important views. I disagree, for me important views almost wholly contain the pursuit of justice and the elimination of unjust hierarchy - something which can be pursued without letting Nazis have their say. >It's a sick joke that the most regressive among us these days are the ones who pretend to care for the marginalized I disagree; refusing to tolerate regressive views is exactly what makes such people progressive, in realising the futility and backwardness of certain views. I find it quite funny the little play here; Nazis say they want to kill people. Liberals reply with "I don't like that, but I'll defend to your death the right to say it". The Left says "These things shoudn't be said." and suddenly it's the Left who are regressive. The people who say this may also believe the Jews could have been saved had they only debated the Nazis. Holocaust survivors tell a different story. >you're only pretending to be tolerant There's a wonderful essay about 'tolerance' by Marcuse, it's very biased. Its core thesis is that we should be intolerant of those views on the right. And I think that it makes the convincing case of permitting tolerance of Left struggles and not permitting Right struggles - because of the character of the struggle, the character must be subversive, for in tolerance then even subversive character must be tolerated. This subversive character has prevailed where there was before no tolerance for it, and indeed it should prevail, if history is to go by, where there is tolerance for it. I have four quotes from it listed below, if you will bear with me, though the essay makes sense in whole, here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetole... >The liberating force of democracy was the chance it gave to effective dissent, on the individual as well as social scale, its openness to qualitatively different forms of government, of culture, education, work--of the human existence in general. The toleration of free discussion and the equal right of opposites was to define and clarify the different forms of dissent: their direction, content, prospect. But with the concentration of economic and political power and the integration of opposites in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination, effective dissent is blocked where it could freely emerge; in the formation of opinion, in information and communication, in speech and assembly. >Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. >Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: 'fire'. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War. >However, the alternative to the established semi-democratic process [in the US] is not a dictatorship or elite, no matter how intellectual and intelligent, but the struggle for a real democracy. Part of this struggle is the fight against an ideology of tolerance which, in reality, favors and fortifies the conservation of the status quo of inequality and discrimination. For this struggle, I proposed the practice of discriminating tolerance.