4 ms·

The responses are also mostly expressing the exact same hollow moral relativism — "Who is to say what is odious?" — so it's not surprising that they're voted si

by chc 8y ago

The responses are also mostly expressing the exact same hollow moral relativism — "Who is to say what is odious?" — so it's not surprising that they're voted similarly.

sullyj3 8y ago
People are not making the claim that nobody is right, so labelling it "relativism" is inappropriate. Merely pointing out that these norms are applied to everyone, and cut both ways. if somebody else thinks your views are odious and you ought to be silenced, what principled reason do you have for saying you ought not to be? you can take the route of saying that in fact your own views are not odious so you shouldn't be silenced, but your opponents are and therefore should be. But in that case all you've done is engendered a situation where every side feels comfortable and justified in attempting to silence their opponents. Because obviously, every side thinks they're right and their opponents are terrible people (note that I'm still not claiming that neither side is right). Discourse quality is degraded. And people start looking around for the next rhetorical nuke to throw at their percieved enemies. it's a race to the bottom, and the bottom contains mainly shouting, hatred, and fearmongering. Norms like "people shouldn't be silenced even if their speech is despicable" are the Geneva convention in the war of the words. They're social technologies which allow people who disagree to coexist peacefully. These are the insights of the enlightenment, and liberalism as the word originally meant.
dvtrn 8y ago
I suppose that's where I'm going to disagree, the idea that these responses are 'hollow' by daring to ask such a question. Maybe it's because I had the honor of living at a time in the US when certain behaviors were not only deemed socially odious but were codified in law as odious until enough people stood up and asked "who are you to say sending my daughter to a segregated school is odious" or "what is so odious about my mother choosing to sit at a certain place in this eating establishment" that sweeping legal and social change (with much room for continued progress to be made, mind you) came as a result of such 'hollow' and 'relativist' inquiries-as you call them.
- chc 8y ago
  It's not asking the question that's hollow — it's actually a worthwhile question — it's asking it as a rhetorical question, as those comments do. They are asking it for the specific purpose of not answering it. If they'd actually grappled with the complexity of the question to come up with an answer, I suspect they'd be upvoted.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Can't say I even agree with that. These questions don't just manifest in a vacuum. And if they are worthwhile asking, then IMO (and stressing IMO) it doesn't matter if they're rhetorical or directly interrogative in delivery or purpose. Asserting otherwise feels like an excercise in projecting.

by chc 8y ago

The responses are also mostly expressing the exact same hollow moral relativism — "Who is to say what is odious?" — so it's not surprising that they're voted similarly.

sullyj3 8y ago

People are not making the claim that nobody is right, so labelling it "relativism" is inappropriate. Merely pointing out that these norms are applied to everyone, and cut both ways. if somebody else thinks your views are odious and you ought to be silenced, what principled reason do you have for saying you ought not to be? you can take the route of saying that in fact your own views are not odious so you shouldn't be silenced, but your opponents are and therefore should be. But in that case all you've done is engendered a situation where every side feels comfortable and justified in attempting to silence their opponents. Because obviously, every side thinks they're right and their opponents are terrible people (note that I'm still not claiming that neither side is right). Discourse quality is degraded. And people start looking around for the next rhetorical nuke to throw at their percieved enemies. it's a race to the bottom, and the bottom contains mainly shouting, hatred, and fearmongering. Norms like "people shouldn't be silenced even if their speech is despicable" are the Geneva convention in the war of the words. They're social technologies which allow people who disagree to coexist peacefully. These are the insights of the enlightenment, and liberalism as the word originally meant.

dvtrn 8y ago

I suppose that's where I'm going to disagree, the idea that these responses are 'hollow' by daring to ask such a question. Maybe it's because I had the honor of living at a time in the US when certain behaviors were not only deemed socially odious but were codified in law as odious until enough people stood up and asked "who are you to say sending my daughter to a segregated school is odious" or "what is so odious about my mother choosing to sit at a certain place in this eating establishment" that sweeping legal and social change (with much room for continued progress to be made, mind you) came as a result of such 'hollow' and 'relativist' inquiries-as you call them.

chc 8y ago
It's not asking the question that's hollow — it's actually a worthwhile question — it's asking it as a rhetorical question, as those comments do. They are asking it for the specific purpose of not answering it. If they'd actually grappled with the complexity of the question to come up with an answer, I suspect they'd be upvoted.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Can't say I even agree with that. These questions don't just manifest in a vacuum. And if they are worthwhile asking, then IMO (and stressing IMO) it doesn't matter if they're rhetorical or directly interrogative in delivery or purpose. Asserting otherwise feels like an excercise in projecting.