4 ms·
I'm absolutely trying to reduce the scope from what it has become. It has become, "person I don't like is intolerant, according to me, and hey paradox of toler
by refenestrator 5y ago
I'm absolutely trying to reduce the scope from what it has become.
It has become, "person I don't like is intolerant, according to me, and hey paradox of tolerance, therefore I will persecute them with no quarter and no decency". Did you see some of the crazy cancellation stories last summer? One guy was ruined for saying "please don't burn down buildings, especially right next to my house": https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-choral-composer-antifa-blm-gia/ https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...
If you think you've found a loophole that enables you to be a McCarthyist rooting out evil, you're the bad guy.
- vidarh 5y agoYou've set up a strawman with no relevance to what I originally wrote, and use that to imply I've suggested something I never have.
- refenestrator 5y agoYou specifically used the word 'ruthlessness', approvingly, and cited the paradox of tolerance as justification. People are really out there being ruthless, trying to hurt people, and justifying it using your logic. It's not a strawman if it's literally happening.
- vidarh 5y agoRuthlessness does not imply force or hurting people. It's a strawman because the situation you constructed implied things I'd never suggested and then used those to attack what I said instead of attacking what I actually said. > It's not a strawman if it's literally happening. That's not how strawmen works.