2 ms·

The easy answer is that weaponised kindness and tolerance are not actually kindness and tolerance - the word 'weaponised' is the differentiator.

lmm 4y ago
Refraining from ever saying anything against a person's political views is genuinely kindness, or at least it's hard to argue that it isn't. It just does more harm in other ways. The redefinition of tolerance to mean deference to other people's absurd views is a travesty IMO, but that battle has already been lost. In any case this "easy answer" is useless in practice; arguing that these policies are unkind or intolerant at best gets you debating semantics, and is usually even less effective than that.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  > The redefinition of tolerance to mean deference to other people's absurd views is a travesty IMO, but that battle has already been lost. I'm not sure anything has been redefined. Tolerance is the ability to live in a world alongside people whose views you don't share. Kindness is the ability to treat those people with respect, despite disagreeing with them. It would be nice to see influential people expressing these views, instead of making things worse. It's basically impossible to provide examples without the conversation devolving, so I'll leave it there.
- danparsonson 4y ago
  Strawmen all round: - Refraining from ever saying anything against a person's political views is not kindness. It's possible to disagree kindly, which is indeed the point at issue here - "The redefinition of tolerance" that you mention is not tolerance, but a convenient misdirection for politicians and other talking heads to use when justifying their demonisation of whichever outgroup is currently the target. The choice is presented as either maintaining the status quo at the expense of the minority, or this twisted phantom version of tolerance that is worse for everyone, thereby shutting down honest respectful discussion.

lmm 4y ago

Refraining from ever saying anything against a person's political views is genuinely kindness, or at least it's hard to argue that it isn't. It just does more harm in other ways. The redefinition of tolerance to mean deference to other people's absurd views is a travesty IMO, but that battle has already been lost. In any case this "easy answer" is useless in practice; arguing that these policies are unkind or intolerant at best gets you debating semantics, and is usually even less effective than that.

doctor_eval 4y ago
> The redefinition of tolerance to mean deference to other people's absurd views is a travesty IMO, but that battle has already been lost. I'm not sure anything has been redefined. Tolerance is the ability to live in a world alongside people whose views you don't share. Kindness is the ability to treat those people with respect, despite disagreeing with them. It would be nice to see influential people expressing these views, instead of making things worse. It's basically impossible to provide examples without the conversation devolving, so I'll leave it there.
danparsonson 4y ago
Strawmen all round: - Refraining from ever saying anything against a person's political views is not kindness. It's possible to disagree kindly, which is indeed the point at issue here - "The redefinition of tolerance" that you mention is not tolerance, but a convenient misdirection for politicians and other talking heads to use when justifying their demonisation of whichever outgroup is currently the target. The choice is presented as either maintaining the status quo at the expense of the minority, or this twisted phantom version of tolerance that is worse for everyone, thereby shutting down honest respectful discussion.