3 ms·

> In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions I think that this is not true and that society and individuals can

by baddox 6y ago

> In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions I think that this is not true and that society and individuals can and should reserve the right to suppress intolerant ideologies.

PeterisP 6y ago
What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; e.g. Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. You won't succeed in claims that your ideology is special and deserves protection that the opponents' ideology does not - that hypocrisy simply won't be accepted by everyone who doesn't already share your ideology. Your enemies have similar motivations as you do, they consider your political agenda as harmful and dangerous to society where it would be morally justified to ensure that the politions of power are cleansed from (for example) the liberal agenda. A line in the sand of "we won't harass people because of their political views" generally works as protection against oppression, even if you have to include oppressive political views as well in that basket. In essence, the choice in this matter is simply about escalation or living side by side with your political enemies by agreeing to specify where "the battlefield" is - IMHO, ideally, limited to debates and votes by elected representatives and discourse in media and social circles. If it's escalated to "let's fight our enemies" in the field of employment or providing services then it's not as bad as street fights (which were used in political 'discourse' a hundred years ago) but still going to lead to a lot of people harmed on both sides.
- baddox 6y ago
  > What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; All modes of justification can be invoked fraudulently. This does not invalidate my mode of justification any more than it invalidates very basic uncontroversial modes of justification such as "we should reserve the right to use force to suppress murder." Sure, those in power can and do invoke that mode of justification fraudulently by falsely claiming that people are murderers and thus using violence against them. We do not throw up our hands and say "well, we cannot ever use that mode of justification, because who can really say for sure what is and isn't murder?" > Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. Just like my even simpler example above, this is not a problem for my argument. I can and do claim two things: that we are justified using violence to suppress intolerance, and that it's bad when people use violence to suppress things that they falsely claim are intolerance.

by baddox 6y ago

PeterisP 6y ago

What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; e.g. Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. You won't succeed in claims that your ideology is special and deserves protection that the opponents' ideology does not - that hypocrisy simply won't be accepted by everyone who doesn't already share your ideology. Your enemies have similar motivations as you do, they consider your political agenda as harmful and dangerous to society where it would be morally justified to ensure that the politions of power are cleansed from (for example) the liberal agenda. A line in the sand of "we won't harass people because of their political views" generally works as protection against oppression, even if you have to include oppressive political views as well in that basket. In essence, the choice in this matter is simply about escalation or living side by side with your political enemies by agreeing to specify where "the battlefield" is - IMHO, ideally, limited to debates and votes by elected representatives and discourse in media and social circles. If it's escalated to "let's fight our enemies" in the field of employment or providing services then it's not as bad as street fights (which were used in political 'discourse' a hundred years ago) but still going to lead to a lot of people harmed on both sides.

baddox 6y ago
> What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; All modes of justification can be invoked fraudulently. This does not invalidate my mode of justification any more than it invalidates very basic uncontroversial modes of justification such as "we should reserve the right to use force to suppress murder." Sure, those in power can and do invoke that mode of justification fraudulently by falsely claiming that people are murderers and thus using violence against them. We do not throw up our hands and say "well, we cannot ever use that mode of justification, because who can really say for sure what is and isn't murder?" > Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. Just like my even simpler example above, this is not a problem for my argument. I can and do claim two things: that we are justified using violence to suppress intolerance, and that it's bad when people use violence to suppress things that they falsely claim are intolerance.