6 ms·

> where people are more tolerant of opposite views For now yeah but the tides are changing everywhere. Europe (and the US) fought facism, so we had a period of

> where people are more tolerant of opposite views For now yeah but the tides are changing everywhere. Europe (and the US) fought facism, so we had a period of time where politics where mostly shades of purple/blue/red. Now facism is on the rise again, and we're seeing that across Europe, from Spain with Vox to Sweden with "Sweden Democrats". With the rise of these parties, you're seeing more and more of excommunication, as being tolerant of intolerance will only lead to more intolerance, not tolerance.

ppf 6y ago
I love this argument, just because it completely flips reality on its head. The intolerance that is being discussed is that of the Progressive US Left, who cannot tolerate any dissention from the current state of "politically correct" (here I use it's original definition). What you are describing is the reaction to it. It's a masterstroke of political reasoning, when you find a way to define your own shortfalls as stemming from the "other side". Edit: I should add, it's amusing while it doesn't affect me, but the ramifications are horrifying.
- jeromegv 6y ago
  You're talking like the leader of the right in the USA was tolerant of any different viewpoint than his own viewpoint around him. He's publicly rejected and shit on people very publicly that were his allies/staff for years the moment they have a dissenting opinion. Come on, not a left or right thing.
  - ppf 6y ago
    You're talking like the current president of the USA came out of nowhere, and was not at all a public expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo. The president doesn't need to accept dissent from his staff. Just hypothetically, if Obama's health secretary said that being transgender was largely a mental illness, or his head of domestic policy said that we need to close the southern border, does he need to tolerate that? Just to be very clear - those are completely hypothetical - I am not sure what actual "dissent" caused Trump to fire his various staff members, but it is unrelated.
luckylion 6y ago
"Too little cancel culture? Nonsense, we need more of it"
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  The important to thing to realize about cancel culture, CoC enforcement, and various efforts like this, is that it's very occasionally about making the world a better place, and very often about people who want power doing everything they can to seize power. Even the "Black Lives Matter" movement is distracted from the goal of making black lives matter with a laundry list of progressive demands like dismantling the "Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" that are tangentially related at best. (Indeed, the entire premise of contemporary intersectionality demands one surrender the possibility of delivering meaningful reform on an incremental basis, in service of forming a bloc dedicated to seizing power wholesale.)
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation doesn't speak for the Black Lives Matter movement.
    - everdrive 6y ago
      You must admit this is very confusing. Which of those two groups are the good guys? Who does speak for them?
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Back in the days when Occupy movement was starting, and 4chan people were trolling Scientologists, this was lauded as a new era of social movements - decentralized. No central organization to squash, anyone can pick up the label and carry the fight. What we got was also predictable, though. If anyone can fight under any banner, if nobody owns the banner, there is no possibility to come to a compromise, to settle the differences. The proponents of a movement will pick the most benign shard as an example to defend and popularize their cause; the opponents of the movement will pick the most extremist shard as a justification to fight back. Everyone feels their survival is at stake.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Yeah, the primary intolerance is done by the champions of Popper's maxim, who weaponized it and use it to cast away anyone who disagrees with them. I keep saying: the paradox of tolerance applies recursively. To preserve tolerance, the intolerant must be removed from the community. However, if in the process of removing the intolerant, you cause collateral damage on innocent, tolerant people, then you become the intolerant that needs to be removed.

ppf 6y ago

I love this argument, just because it completely flips reality on its head. The intolerance that is being discussed is that of the Progressive US Left, who cannot tolerate any dissention from the current state of "politically correct" (here I use it's original definition). What you are describing is the reaction to it. It's a masterstroke of political reasoning, when you find a way to define your own shortfalls as stemming from the "other side". Edit: I should add, it's amusing while it doesn't affect me, but the ramifications are horrifying.

jeromegv 6y ago
You're talking like the leader of the right in the USA was tolerant of any different viewpoint than his own viewpoint around him. He's publicly rejected and shit on people very publicly that were his allies/staff for years the moment they have a dissenting opinion. Come on, not a left or right thing.
- ppf 6y ago
  You're talking like the current president of the USA came out of nowhere, and was not at all a public expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo. The president doesn't need to accept dissent from his staff. Just hypothetically, if Obama's health secretary said that being transgender was largely a mental illness, or his head of domestic policy said that we need to close the southern border, does he need to tolerate that? Just to be very clear - those are completely hypothetical - I am not sure what actual "dissent" caused Trump to fire his various staff members, but it is unrelated.

luckylion 6y ago

"Too little cancel culture? Nonsense, we need more of it"

fennecfoxen 6y ago
The important to thing to realize about cancel culture, CoC enforcement, and various efforts like this, is that it's very occasionally about making the world a better place, and very often about people who want power doing everything they can to seize power. Even the "Black Lives Matter" movement is distracted from the goal of making black lives matter with a laundry list of progressive demands like dismantling the "Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" that are tangentially related at best. (Indeed, the entire premise of contemporary intersectionality demands one surrender the possibility of delivering meaningful reform on an incremental basis, in service of forming a bloc dedicated to seizing power wholesale.)
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation doesn't speak for the Black Lives Matter movement.
  - everdrive 6y ago
    You must admit this is very confusing. Which of those two groups are the good guys? Who does speak for them?
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Back in the days when Occupy movement was starting, and 4chan people were trolling Scientologists, this was lauded as a new era of social movements - decentralized. No central organization to squash, anyone can pick up the label and carry the fight. What we got was also predictable, though. If anyone can fight under any banner, if nobody owns the banner, there is no possibility to come to a compromise, to settle the differences. The proponents of a movement will pick the most benign shard as an example to defend and popularize their cause; the opponents of the movement will pick the most extremist shard as a justification to fight back. Everyone feels their survival is at stake.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Yeah, the primary intolerance is done by the champions of Popper's maxim, who weaponized it and use it to cast away anyone who disagrees with them. I keep saying: the paradox of tolerance applies recursively. To preserve tolerance, the intolerant must be removed from the community. However, if in the process of removing the intolerant, you cause collateral damage on innocent, tolerant people, then you become the intolerant that needs to be removed.