8 ms·

The opening paragraphs are lovely and absolutely not what I'd expected based on the name. This is the America we want to live in. "We insist upon the right to

by Jkol 5y ago

The opening paragraphs are lovely and absolutely not what I'd expected based on the name. This is the America we want to live in. "We insist upon the right to express our own opinions. But we also believe in the right of others to express their opinions. For the right to speak involves the duty to listen...We know that the truth can only be found through open and honest discussion, and that the common good is served through common attempts to reach common understanding".

echelon 5y ago
We need to be reminded of this. The left and right are so divided that they're intolerable of one another. Neither side believes the other is worth listening to. It's a shame. We're all animals traversing a complicated landscape. There's daily pain and suffering, and then we die. We should remind ourselves how similar everyone actually is, and that the diversity of our views are humanity living and breathing through our mortal, aging bodies.
- techrat 5y ago
  Right there with the 'both sides are the same' false equivalence... In case you're wondering why.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
    - mvid 5y ago
      I literally watched him say it, live
    - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
      Oh look, video evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs
  - overgard 5y ago
    I think if you are willing to ignore 50% of the population, well, I don't know what to tell you other than that history does not look kindly on partisans.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      Not just 50% of the population. Folks on the left will sniffily tell you that stuff where the vast majority of the rest of humanity agrees with the right isn’t even up for discussion.
      - snypher 5y ago
        We shouldn't have the hubris to think the "vast majority of the rest of humanity" agrees with us at all.
      - esrauch 5y ago
        Your sentence is really the same divisive "other side is crazy" crap that everyone else is complaining about. Folks on both the left and right (under US definitions) will sniffily do that same thing and act like their positions are obviously correct and the other side obviously unreasonable.
        systemvoltage 5y ago
        The left controls all corporations and big tech (see Google’s new policy for misinformation). So one side has an unreasonable amount of power.
        rayiner 5y ago
        When was that? 30 years ago? Try having a conversation today with a progressive about virtually any issue where American conservatives may agree with people in Asia or Africa (or even a big chunk of moderate Democrats). I noticed this particularly acutely in how progressives have rallied around Muslims but you can’t actually talk about a bunch of stuff my Bangladeshi mom and aunts believe. Same sex marriage is one example, but also abortion, gender roles, child rearing, civil order, religion in schools, etc. Ironically, as a result, you can’t have public conversations about a bunch of stuff many Democrats (particularly non-white Democrats) believe. When Obama have a speech about dads raising their kids, he was shouted down by white liberals. Can’t talk about Latino views on abortion, or Muslim views on gender roles and procreative marriage.
  - spiderice 5y ago
    How, exactly? I don’t see any claims to equivalence in GP’s comment at all.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - elefanten 5y ago
    What a knee-jerk, unserious reply. You performed the perfect example of the point gp was trying to make.
- nobleach 5y ago
  What's worse, that division is extremely profitable to some. So they spend their resources stoking that division. This only serves to drive the wedge deeper. Meanwhile, it's like the classic game of Three Card Monte. We are so busy hating the people we're told are "our enemy", that we ignore potential real enemies.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  One side wants trans people to be able to use the same bathroom and universal healthcare the other side talks about shooting democrats and Myanmar style coups. It is impossible to be tolerant of the Fourth Reich or those who if they don't condone it will at best tolerate it for tax cuts. Our unresolvable division is because 10% is evil and 30% is nuts and the remainder can't have anything they want if they don't embrace the crazy. These people will sacrifice our actual values for pale shadows of same.
  - techrat 5y ago
    In Portland. One side of the crowd holds signs like "Down with the Fash" and "Trans Rights are Human Rights." The other side of the crowd literally wearing "RWDS" Patches (Right Wing Death Squad) and "Pinochet Did Nothing Wrong" shirts. Some of the people in this thread: "Huh! I don't see any difference between the two. Both sides! Hurr durr."
    - echelon 5y ago
      You're painting the entire right as Nazis though. That's not at all accurate. Some people just don't want to be taxed, want their guns, and are afraid of the theory of evolution. You're failing to see the huge distribution of people on both sides. There are Nazis on both sides, but there aren't many. The majority are closer to the middle, and the media uses the extreme examples to enrage and divide for dollars.
      - techrat 5y ago
        > You're painting the entire right as Nazis though. Do you know what you call someone who is okay associating with white supremacists? A white supremacist.
        echelon 5y ago
        You're so wrong. You're dealing in absolutes and lumping everyone you disagree with into the Hitler/racist bin. It's an indoctrination. Explain non-white conservatives. Explain them in other non-US countries such as Japan. Explain white (often Christian) conservatives that adopt minority children. You're so single minded in your hate towards these people, most of whom you do not know, that you can't see that you're wrong. Perhaps it is your world view and experiences are that are limited. I'm sorry you feel this way. I hope you can start loving more people than you hate.
dheera 5y ago
xkcd doesn't agree with the "duty to listen". https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- remram 5y ago
  I don't see those things as incompatible at all. "giving the other side a fair chance to make its point" (from very next sentence) doesn't mean they can't blow that chance by being obnoxious, unfair, offensive, or plain wrong. I don't think the OP argues that this "duty to listen" extends forever, that you have to keep listening after you have determined that "the other side" is being an asshole.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    I think a tit-for-tat approach is fair. If the other party is demonstrably not listening to you, you can drop the duty to listen (and you should probably just disengage). If someone is participating in good faith, but wrong or an asshole/obnoxious/offensive, I don't think that justifies censorship. In any argument at least one and frequently both positions are plain wrong. Both parties think that is true of the other. If that were a reason to drop free speech norms, they would always be dropped. Civility is an aspirational value, but communities that enforce it invariably will do so in a biased way. Rude behavior is easy to spot in the outgroup and easy to overlook in the ingroup. Offensiveness is nebulously defined- someone might be offended by the word 'asshole', someone else by the banning of vulgarity. How a community defines civility privileges people from backgrounds that define it similarly. Those closest to the issue will have a harder time keeping their emotions in check- eg. a white person might have an easier time arguing dispassionately about racism than a minority. If you can get around those issues, I think you should. Civil discourse optimizes for a lot of the factors that justify free speech in the first place. Not so with being wrong; a major benefit of free speech is that those who are wrong and participating can be righted, to the benefit of all parties.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  xkcd isn't exactly an arbiter of truth
- 5y ago

by Jkol 5y ago

echelon 5y ago

We need to be reminded of this. The left and right are so divided that they're intolerable of one another. Neither side believes the other is worth listening to. It's a shame. We're all animals traversing a complicated landscape. There's daily pain and suffering, and then we die. We should remind ourselves how similar everyone actually is, and that the diversity of our views are humanity living and breathing through our mortal, aging bodies.

techrat 5y ago
Right there with the 'both sides are the same' false equivalence... In case you're wondering why.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - mvid 5y ago
    I literally watched him say it, live
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    Oh look, video evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs
- overgard 5y ago
  I think if you are willing to ignore 50% of the population, well, I don't know what to tell you other than that history does not look kindly on partisans.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Not just 50% of the population. Folks on the left will sniffily tell you that stuff where the vast majority of the rest of humanity agrees with the right isn’t even up for discussion.
    - snypher 5y ago
      We shouldn't have the hubris to think the "vast majority of the rest of humanity" agrees with us at all.
    - esrauch 5y ago
      Your sentence is really the same divisive "other side is crazy" crap that everyone else is complaining about. Folks on both the left and right (under US definitions) will sniffily do that same thing and act like their positions are obviously correct and the other side obviously unreasonable.
      - systemvoltage 5y ago
        The left controls all corporations and big tech (see Google’s new policy for misinformation). So one side has an unreasonable amount of power.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        When was that? 30 years ago? Try having a conversation today with a progressive about virtually any issue where American conservatives may agree with people in Asia or Africa (or even a big chunk of moderate Democrats). I noticed this particularly acutely in how progressives have rallied around Muslims but you can’t actually talk about a bunch of stuff my Bangladeshi mom and aunts believe. Same sex marriage is one example, but also abortion, gender roles, child rearing, civil order, religion in schools, etc. Ironically, as a result, you can’t have public conversations about a bunch of stuff many Democrats (particularly non-white Democrats) believe. When Obama have a speech about dads raising their kids, he was shouted down by white liberals. Can’t talk about Latino views on abortion, or Muslim views on gender roles and procreative marriage.
- spiderice 5y ago
  How, exactly? I don’t see any claims to equivalence in GP’s comment at all.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- elefanten 5y ago
  What a knee-jerk, unserious reply. You performed the perfect example of the point gp was trying to make.
nobleach 5y ago
What's worse, that division is extremely profitable to some. So they spend their resources stoking that division. This only serves to drive the wedge deeper. Meanwhile, it's like the classic game of Three Card Monte. We are so busy hating the people we're told are "our enemy", that we ignore potential real enemies.
michaelmrose 5y ago
One side wants trans people to be able to use the same bathroom and universal healthcare the other side talks about shooting democrats and Myanmar style coups. It is impossible to be tolerant of the Fourth Reich or those who if they don't condone it will at best tolerate it for tax cuts. Our unresolvable division is because 10% is evil and 30% is nuts and the remainder can't have anything they want if they don't embrace the crazy. These people will sacrifice our actual values for pale shadows of same.
- techrat 5y ago
  In Portland. One side of the crowd holds signs like "Down with the Fash" and "Trans Rights are Human Rights." The other side of the crowd literally wearing "RWDS" Patches (Right Wing Death Squad) and "Pinochet Did Nothing Wrong" shirts. Some of the people in this thread: "Huh! I don't see any difference between the two. Both sides! Hurr durr."
  - echelon 5y ago
    You're painting the entire right as Nazis though. That's not at all accurate. Some people just don't want to be taxed, want their guns, and are afraid of the theory of evolution. You're failing to see the huge distribution of people on both sides. There are Nazis on both sides, but there aren't many. The majority are closer to the middle, and the media uses the extreme examples to enrage and divide for dollars.
    - techrat 5y ago
      > You're painting the entire right as Nazis though. Do you know what you call someone who is okay associating with white supremacists? A white supremacist.
      - echelon 5y ago
        You're so wrong. You're dealing in absolutes and lumping everyone you disagree with into the Hitler/racist bin. It's an indoctrination. Explain non-white conservatives. Explain them in other non-US countries such as Japan. Explain white (often Christian) conservatives that adopt minority children. You're so single minded in your hate towards these people, most of whom you do not know, that you can't see that you're wrong. Perhaps it is your world view and experiences are that are limited. I'm sorry you feel this way. I hope you can start loving more people than you hate.

dheera 5y ago

xkcd doesn't agree with the "duty to listen". https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

remram 5y ago
I don't see those things as incompatible at all. "giving the other side a fair chance to make its point" (from very next sentence) doesn't mean they can't blow that chance by being obnoxious, unfair, offensive, or plain wrong. I don't think the OP argues that this "duty to listen" extends forever, that you have to keep listening after you have determined that "the other side" is being an asshole.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  I think a tit-for-tat approach is fair. If the other party is demonstrably not listening to you, you can drop the duty to listen (and you should probably just disengage). If someone is participating in good faith, but wrong or an asshole/obnoxious/offensive, I don't think that justifies censorship. In any argument at least one and frequently both positions are plain wrong. Both parties think that is true of the other. If that were a reason to drop free speech norms, they would always be dropped. Civility is an aspirational value, but communities that enforce it invariably will do so in a biased way. Rude behavior is easy to spot in the outgroup and easy to overlook in the ingroup. Offensiveness is nebulously defined- someone might be offended by the word 'asshole', someone else by the banning of vulgarity. How a community defines civility privileges people from backgrounds that define it similarly. Those closest to the issue will have a harder time keeping their emotions in check- eg. a white person might have an easier time arguing dispassionately about racism than a minority. If you can get around those issues, I think you should. Civil discourse optimizes for a lot of the factors that justify free speech in the first place. Not so with being wrong; a major benefit of free speech is that those who are wrong and participating can be righted, to the benefit of all parties.
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
xkcd isn't exactly an arbiter of truth
5y ago