7 ms·

All the buzzwords are there, toxicity, harassment, safe spaces, sanction, ban, inclusivity. All to promote/cement the viewpoints that we now understand to be ,s

All the buzzwords are there, toxicity, harassment, safe spaces, sanction, ban, inclusivity. All to promote/cement the viewpoints that we now understand to be ,self evidently, the correct ones.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
The most tolerant societies end up tolerating the intolerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- stormdennis 6y ago
  The rule of law, combined with the broadest possible free speech, is the best defence as had been shown in Western democracies for quite some time now. Democracy in Germany in the thirties was in a very weak condition for a variety of reasons which allowed the Nazis to undermine it fatally.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    And it's probably worth considering that democracy after the forties in Germany includes Strafgesetzbuch §86a.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      Notably this law perpetuates on a daily basis the Nazis' coercive and violent appropriation of a number of traditional religious and cultural symbols, and with it their unnatural exploitation as emblems of the most evil and despicable ideas ever contrived in modern history. All things considered, a very fitting example of parent poster's point.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        > unnatural There's nothing natural or unnatural about human interpretation of abstract symbols.
        zozbot234 6y ago
        Indeed; there's nothing "natural" either about taking a symbol that has literally been used from time immemorial throughout the Northern hemisphere (including in Europe up until the early 20th c.!) and treating it as an inherent reference to a bunch of folks who anyone sensible regards as enemies of everything that civilized society stands for. But that's not what one would assume, given that this law exists!
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        Unfortunately, law exists because we cannot rely on only what the sensible people do and understand.
- tasogare 6y ago
  This is not the problem here. The problem is that traditional ideas (those that rules the world until very recently and that are still applied in a lot of countries including some top world powers) are being systematically suppressed both on and offline. Moreover speech is now evaluated on who says it instead of the content itself, and if the locutor is not in one of the privileged groups, it is dismissed or even casted as an aggression.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  I'll embrace that. Yes, the most tolerant societies tolerate the intolerable, and that's good and right. something something paradox of "please ban things I don't like" something what good is tolerance if people end up disagreeing with me
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Tolerating the intolerable is much worse than that. A society ends up nourishing something that destroys it, because the intolerable is under no obligation to play fair. Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons. Citation needed. Germany has had strict censorship laws since forever. They obviously did not stop the Nazis. If you're arguing that censorship is required to stop the Nazis, that's a point you should address, especially given that they had specifically added censorship laws against right-wing extremists in the Weimar Republic in the Republikschutzgesetz.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        What I'm missing is signal on how those laws were enforced. The Weimar constitution included (translation) "No censorship will take place," which does make me wonder how effective the existing laws were.
        zozbot234 6y ago
        Emergency decrees could freely override any such provision, and became increasingly common during the Weimar Republic (particularly so in the early 1930s) as a result of gridlock within Parliament. The no-censorship provision, while real, was not enforceable as a matter of fact.
    - free_rms 6y ago

All the buzzwords are there, toxicity, harassment, safe spaces, sanction, ban, inclusivity. All to promote/cement the viewpoints that we now understand to be ,self evidently, the correct ones.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

The most tolerant societies end up tolerating the intolerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

stormdennis 6y ago
The rule of law, combined with the broadest possible free speech, is the best defence as had been shown in Western democracies for quite some time now. Democracy in Germany in the thirties was in a very weak condition for a variety of reasons which allowed the Nazis to undermine it fatally.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  And it's probably worth considering that democracy after the forties in Germany includes Strafgesetzbuch §86a.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Notably this law perpetuates on a daily basis the Nazis' coercive and violent appropriation of a number of traditional religious and cultural symbols, and with it their unnatural exploitation as emblems of the most evil and despicable ideas ever contrived in modern history. All things considered, a very fitting example of parent poster's point.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      > unnatural There's nothing natural or unnatural about human interpretation of abstract symbols.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        Indeed; there's nothing "natural" either about taking a symbol that has literally been used from time immemorial throughout the Northern hemisphere (including in Europe up until the early 20th c.!) and treating it as an inherent reference to a bunch of folks who anyone sensible regards as enemies of everything that civilized society stands for. But that's not what one would assume, given that this law exists!
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        Unfortunately, law exists because we cannot rely on only what the sensible people do and understand.
tasogare 6y ago
This is not the problem here. The problem is that traditional ideas (those that rules the world until very recently and that are still applied in a lot of countries including some top world powers) are being systematically suppressed both on and offline. Moreover speech is now evaluated on who says it instead of the content itself, and if the locutor is not in one of the privileged groups, it is dismissed or even casted as an aggression.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
I'll embrace that. Yes, the most tolerant societies tolerate the intolerable, and that's good and right. something something paradox of "please ban things I don't like" something what good is tolerance if people end up disagreeing with me
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Tolerating the intolerable is much worse than that. A society ends up nourishing something that destroys it, because the intolerable is under no obligation to play fair. Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons. Citation needed. Germany has had strict censorship laws since forever. They obviously did not stop the Nazis. If you're arguing that censorship is required to stop the Nazis, that's a point you should address, especially given that they had specifically added censorship laws against right-wing extremists in the Weimar Republic in the Republikschutzgesetz.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      What I'm missing is signal on how those laws were enforced. The Weimar constitution included (translation) "No censorship will take place," which does make me wonder how effective the existing laws were.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        Emergency decrees could freely override any such provision, and became increasingly common during the Weimar Republic (particularly so in the early 1930s) as a result of gridlock within Parliament. The no-censorship provision, while real, was not enforceable as a matter of fact.
  - free_rms 6y ago