6 ms·

Both are protecting from anything outside of one's comfort zone. What's next, shout down politicians you don't agree with? That's not how democratical societie

by mantas 3y ago

Both are protecting from anything outside of one's comfort zone. What's next, shout down politicians you don't agree with? That's not how democratical societies work.

wvenable 3y ago
Or it's merely intolerance of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- dotnet00 3y ago
  There should be a variation of godwin's law for this, as it's the go-to excuse for anyone to justify not having to listen to anything that makes them uncomfortable.
- tremon 3y ago
  Intolerance is hardly the only thing that gets shouted down.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Quite a lot of aggressors consider themselves to be righteous ad good when they attack some unpopular person/people. The paradox of intolerance stems from the 1930s. When we stay there for a bit longer - do you think that the participants of the Kristallnacht considered themselves evil? No, they were brainwashed into thinking that they were righteous, fighting to save their country from corruption and evil brought upon it by ... their victims, who "had it coming". "We are fighting for a just and important cause!" or "We are protecting the vulnerable!" means precisely nothing from the mouths of a mob. A mob is mostly a psychopathic entity that just seeks rationalizations for its outpouring of violence.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mantas 3y ago
      His point was that Kristallnacht people thought they are „cancelling“ evil too.
      - wvenable 3y ago
        So the point is we have to listen to evil because we might be wrong about what is evil? It makes no sense. Especially when we're talking about, in some cases, literal modern Nazis.
        dotnet00 3y ago
        The point is that you are not a reliable judge of what is evil and thus not a reliable judge of what should not be tolerated. Since apparently it still isn't clear to you what they're saying, Nazis, like many other authoritarian regimes, punished criticism of them. That has the exact same logic as yours, they think they're doing the right thing, thus criticizing them is promoting evil and thus should be shut down (another very visible example of this would be the various forms of "hurt sentiments" related issues in various Asian countries). This is why "intolerance of intolerance" is a fallacy. It presumes that those being accused of intolerance are doing it in bad faith rather than out of a genuine belief that they are doing the right thing.
        wvenable 3y ago
        All "punishments" are not the same. Free speech means that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech. You can't imprisoned or physically harmed. But people equate that with speech without consequence and, even more, that they are entitled to someone else's forum for their speech. In authoritarian regimes we are talking about real criminal-type punishments. You're purposely conflating these ideas together when they are different. If nobody wants to listen to your terrible idea or give you a forum for them then that's their right. If people don't want to associate with you because of what you believe that is their right. If people want to convince others to not give you that forum, that's their free speech. We don't have to give a forum to the very ideas that lead to real punishment of criticism.
- mantas 3y ago
  Then both sides start doing the same and using same excuse. Final result is decay of democracy and ultimately civil war. Looking from afar, US left/woke/whatever is nowhere close to objectively tolerant. Unless you use a very nuanced tolerance definition. It’s long past „live and let live".

by mantas 3y ago

Both are protecting from anything outside of one's comfort zone. What's next, shout down politicians you don't agree with? That's not how democratical societies work.

wvenable 3y ago

Or it's merely intolerance of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

dotnet00 3y ago
There should be a variation of godwin's law for this, as it's the go-to excuse for anyone to justify not having to listen to anything that makes them uncomfortable.
tremon 3y ago
Intolerance is hardly the only thing that gets shouted down.
inglor_cz 3y ago
Quite a lot of aggressors consider themselves to be righteous ad good when they attack some unpopular person/people. The paradox of intolerance stems from the 1930s. When we stay there for a bit longer - do you think that the participants of the Kristallnacht considered themselves evil? No, they were brainwashed into thinking that they were righteous, fighting to save their country from corruption and evil brought upon it by ... their victims, who "had it coming". "We are fighting for a just and important cause!" or "We are protecting the vulnerable!" means precisely nothing from the mouths of a mob. A mob is mostly a psychopathic entity that just seeks rationalizations for its outpouring of violence.
- wvenable 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mantas 3y ago
    His point was that Kristallnacht people thought they are „cancelling“ evil too.
    - wvenable 3y ago
      So the point is we have to listen to evil because we might be wrong about what is evil? It makes no sense. Especially when we're talking about, in some cases, literal modern Nazis.
      - dotnet00 3y ago
        The point is that you are not a reliable judge of what is evil and thus not a reliable judge of what should not be tolerated. Since apparently it still isn't clear to you what they're saying, Nazis, like many other authoritarian regimes, punished criticism of them. That has the exact same logic as yours, they think they're doing the right thing, thus criticizing them is promoting evil and thus should be shut down (another very visible example of this would be the various forms of "hurt sentiments" related issues in various Asian countries). This is why "intolerance of intolerance" is a fallacy. It presumes that those being accused of intolerance are doing it in bad faith rather than out of a genuine belief that they are doing the right thing.
        wvenable 3y ago
        All "punishments" are not the same. Free speech means that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech. You can't imprisoned or physically harmed. But people equate that with speech without consequence and, even more, that they are entitled to someone else's forum for their speech. In authoritarian regimes we are talking about real criminal-type punishments. You're purposely conflating these ideas together when they are different. If nobody wants to listen to your terrible idea or give you a forum for them then that's their right. If people don't want to associate with you because of what you believe that is their right. If people want to convince others to not give you that forum, that's their free speech. We don't have to give a forum to the very ideas that lead to real punishment of criticism.
mantas 3y ago
Then both sides start doing the same and using same excuse. Final result is decay of democracy and ultimately civil war. Looking from afar, US left/woke/whatever is nowhere close to objectively tolerant. Unless you use a very nuanced tolerance definition. It’s long past „live and let live".