Page 14 of 28 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 274

Thread: The World is Stupid

  1. Top | #131
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    2,550
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.
    Then you're an Isolationist.
    We're talking aren't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    (Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I'm just being a Satarist. )
    Satire is the highest form of political commentary.

    Your comments were well thought out. My hat off to you, Sir.
    I think we've arrived on common ground. Satire is about tearing down walls.

  2. Top | #132
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    2,550
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    I am not advocating for intolerance, only remarking that "tolerance" is setting a very low bar to reach. It's better than nothing, yes. But if your neighbor has done nothing wrong by you, you shouldn't "tolerate" their differences of culture, perspectiive, faith, sexuality, etc, you should actually embrace those differences, not just tolerate them. Society would be much better off if we all did. And if they are doing something truly objectionable, then tolerance may be the best a civil society can afford them for a time, but their malevolent activities, whatever they are, will eventually need to be called out.

    This isn't an opinion I came by "lately", I had my fill of liberal "tolerance" by the time I was 14 years old. It is a cold comfort, I can assure you, to learn that you are only being tolerated, not loved, accepted, or celebrated, by those who you yourself do love and care about. If someone deep down hates everyone who is not like them, the truth of that, the hypocrisy of their true opinion, probably displays itself to other people way more often than they realize. It's because I've been on the receiving end of this my whole life that I can assure you with absolute sincerity, that for the person on the receiving end, tolerance and intolerance aren't really as different as the false Left would have you believe. Tolerance is better than intolerance, it's just a pretty shit excuse for an end goal.
    I think you have a very different understanding of "tolerance" than I do. I tolerate your views when I disagree with them, and show you respect - because I understand that not everyone has to share my views, and that other people's views are valid for them. I tolerate my coworker talking about her bible studies, even though I'm an atheist and I frankly find religions to be absurd and annoying. I tolerate my sister's weed-based lifestyle, even though I think she's proved that it is completely possible to be a junkie about pot.

    Tolerance is the act of accepting other people's views and beliefs as valid for them, even if you don't share those views. If your neighbor has never done anything bad to you and you know nothing about them, you're not "tolerating" them, you have no information about them. On the other hand, if your neighbor believes that the 2020 election was rigged and that covid is a conspiracy, but they have not actually done any harm to you or anyone else, then you are tolerating them.

    For reference, this is the sense in which tolerance is used in this thread...

    tolerance
    2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
    b: the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
    In my mind sympathy for other's beliefs or practices has little to do with what it means to be tolerant. Although it may mean accepting them out of necessity.

    I think saying one is tolerant implies that one has some kind of power to control another's behavior or beliefs, when all they actually have the right to claim is that they accept or reject it. They're hoping to express some latent power over the situation that they really don't have. There is always some higher ideal that prevents or convinces one not to exercise that perceived power. That's why intolerance (the act) is intolerable. But intolerance (the sentiment) is just a delusion and a false sense of power.

  3. Top | #133
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    I am not advocating for intolerance, only remarking that "tolerance" is setting a very low bar to reach. It's better than nothing, yes. But if your neighbor has done nothing wrong by you, you shouldn't "tolerate" their differences of culture, perspectiive, faith, sexuality, etc, you should actually embrace those differences, not just tolerate them. Society would be much better off if we all did. And if they are doing something truly objectionable, then tolerance may be the best a civil society can afford them for a time, but their malevolent activities, whatever they are, will eventually need to be called out.

    This isn't an opinion I came by "lately", I had my fill of liberal "tolerance" by the time I was 14 years old. It is a cold comfort, I can assure you, to learn that you are only being tolerated, not loved, accepted, or celebrated, by those who you yourself do love and care about. If someone deep down hates everyone who is not like them, the truth of that, the hypocrisy of their true opinion, probably displays itself to other people way more often than they realize. It's because I've been on the receiving end of this my whole life that I can assure you with absolute sincerity, that for the person on the receiving end, tolerance and intolerance aren't really as different as the false Left would have you believe. Tolerance is better than intolerance, it's just a pretty shit excuse for an end goal.
    You've just described how totalitarian thought works. You can't force people to love each other. If we demand it from each other we're only forcing people to pretend they embrace each other. Life becomes a theatre. Which is exactly what we have among the left in the West now. To keep each other in line we devise sophisticated systems of social punishments. Because there's no genuine opinions expressed and it's nothing but ritual. Since there's a disconnect between what people are feeling and what they are doing, these rituals quickly spin out of control. We use increasingly bizarre reasons to slam each other as infidels and try to destroy them.

    By comparison this is how militant religion works.

    The best we can do is demand that we tolerate each other. And hope they learn to embrace each other over time. Anything else will backfire.
    Who said anything about force?
    Social pressure and public shaming is also force. People losing their jobs because of opinions they express is force. Deplatforming is force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    You're decrying force, but also advocating for a bloody, twenty-year long war in which hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people died, in the space of a few threads. Which of your two faces would you prefer that I believe?
    You're taking my statements and making them absolute, even when they don't fit. And then poking fun at it. Stop doing that and then it'll make sense.

    I'm also very much in favour of the allies defeating Hitler. I don't think USA and the Brits have anything to be ashamed about for standing up to Hitler. I don't think the 75 million lives lost in WW2 was the sole responsibility of Churchill and Roosevelt. Hitler and Hirohito shares most of the blame. Even though they were the "innocent victims" the allies attacked unprovoked.

    I think that the Taleban and Saddam Hussein carry more responsibility for the lives lost than the allies who invaded. Just my little opinion.

  4. Top | #134
    Veteran Member KeepTalking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis Metro East
    Posts
    4,310
    Archived
    3,057
    Total Posts
    7,367
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Who said anything about force?
    Social pressure and public shaming is also force. People losing their jobs because of opinions they express is force. Deplatforming is force.
    You are incorrect, none of those things is force.

  5. Top | #135
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Who said anything about force?
    Social pressure and public shaming is also force. People losing their jobs because of opinions they express is force. Deplatforming is force.
    You are incorrect, none of those things is force.
    Then we radically disagree on what constitutes force.

    BTW, the absurdity of your argument is made clear by how force works in totalitarian regimes or the kind of force the maffia applies. In both Nazi Germany and the USSR they used the fear of you losing your job as a very effective method of control. Exactly the same mechanic as the woke deplatformers use in the current west.

    With your logic Nazi Germany was a paradise of faceless bureaucrats just asking nicely.

    Force is whatever someone can threaten with that can hurt you. Whatever can make you obey out of fear is a force and a possible weapon.

  6. Top | #136
    Veteran Member KeepTalking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis Metro East
    Posts
    4,310
    Archived
    3,057
    Total Posts
    7,367
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post

    You are incorrect, none of those things is force.
    Then we radically disagree on what constitutes force.
    So it would seem.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    BTW, the absurdity of your argument is made clear by how force works in totalitarian regimes or the kind of force the maffia applies.
    They use the threat of violence, which is the standard definition of force in this context. The fact that none of your examples includes or implies the use of force makes the absurdity of your argument abundantly clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    In both Nazi Germany and the USSR they used the fear of you losing your job as a very effective method of control.
    Show your work.

    Regardless, there is quite a difference between the government exerting authority over your employer to get you fired for being Jewish, or for not being a member of the Communist Party, and a random person on the internet making your boss aware of the racist things you spew on the internet followed by your employer firing you for the actual things you said and did on the internet that are racist.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Exactly the same mechanic as the woke deplatformers use in the current west.
    Incorrect. It is nowhere near the same. Getting someone removed from a platform owned by a private entity in no way applies force to the person removed from that platform, nor does it remove their ability to get their message out as they still have access to the public square, and a expanding stable of other media platforms, some of which will be more than happy to let them spew their racist bile.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    With your logic Nazi Germany was a paradise of faceless bureaucrats just asking nicely.
    Logic appears to be a thing with which you are not well acquainted.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Force is whatever someone can threaten with that can hurt you. Whatever can make you obey out of fear is a force and a possible weapon.
    People have fears about a lot of things, some are rational, others are irrational, that would make using the term "force" in this context quite useless. Force in this context means threat of violence, it always has, and I see no reason to let you redefine it to suit your argument now.

  7. Top | #137
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Who said anything about force?
    Social pressure and public shaming is also force. People losing their jobs because of opinions they express is force. Deplatforming is force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    You're decrying force, but also advocating for a bloody, twenty-year long war in which hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people died, in the space of a few threads. Which of your two faces would you prefer that I believe?
    You're taking my statements and making them absolute, even when they don't fit. And then poking fun at it. Stop doing that and then it'll make sense.

    I'm also very much in favour of the allies defeating Hitler. I don't think USA and the Brits have anything to be ashamed about for standing up to Hitler. I don't think the 75 million lives lost in WW2 was the sole responsibility of Churchill and Roosevelt. Hitler and Hirohito shares most of the blame. Even though they were the "innocent victims" the allies attacked unprovoked.

    I think that the Taleban and Saddam Hussein carry more responsibility for the lives lost than the allies who invaded. Just my little opinion.
    And then you try to equivocate pointed rudeness in public as "force" as though that made it equivalent to state violence... in the same post as accusing me of "taking your statements and making them absolute". If we invade a country, that's the fault of the dictator who runs it no matter who dies in the process. But if a racist loses their job, that's the fault of the "Woke", not their own, and a hideous moral travesty besides. It's perfectly okay for a country to murder thousands to combat racism, but writing a letter of complaint to a game show to combat racism is a bridge too far. You have a fascinating array of contradictory positions. It would be funny if it weren't in service of racial bigotry.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  8. Top | #138
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,092
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Who said anything about force?
    Social pressure and public shaming is also force. People losing their jobs because of opinions they express is force. Deplatforming is force.
    You are incorrect, none of those things is force.
    Do they constitute coercion?

  9. Top | #139
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,092
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    And then you try to equivocate pointed rudeness in public as "force" as though that made it equivalent to state violence... in the same post as accusing me of "taking your statements and making them absolute". If we invade a country, that's the fault of the dictator who runs it no matter who dies in the process. But if a racist loses their job, that's the fault of the "Woke", not their own, and a hideous moral travesty besides. It's perfectly okay for a country to murder thousands to combat racism, but writing a letter of complaint to a game show to combat racism is a bridge too far. You have a fascinating array of contradictory positions. It would be funny if it weren't in service of racial bigotry.
    I'd say that a bunch of people writing letters of complaint to a game show to combat an irrational perception of racism where it most likely does not exist is a bridge too far.

  10. Top | #140
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    Social pressure and public shaming is also force. People losing their jobs because of opinions they express is force. Deplatforming is force.



    You're taking my statements and making them absolute, even when they don't fit. And then poking fun at it. Stop doing that and then it'll make sense.

    I'm also very much in favour of the allies defeating Hitler. I don't think USA and the Brits have anything to be ashamed about for standing up to Hitler. I don't think the 75 million lives lost in WW2 was the sole responsibility of Churchill and Roosevelt. Hitler and Hirohito shares most of the blame. Even though they were the "innocent victims" the allies attacked unprovoked.

    I think that the Taleban and Saddam Hussein carry more responsibility for the lives lost than the allies who invaded. Just my little opinion.
    And then you try to equivocate pointed rudeness in public as "force" as though that made it equivalent to state violence... in the same post as accusing me of "taking your statements and making them absolute". If we invade a country, that's the fault of the dictator who runs it no matter who dies in the process. But if a racist loses their job, that's the fault of the "Woke", not their own, and a hideous moral travesty besides. It's perfectly okay for a country to murder thousands to combat racism, but writing a letter of complaint to a game show to combat racism is a bridge too far. You have a fascinating array of contradictory positions. It would be funny if it weren't in service of racial bigotry.
    At least you now understand my reasoning, even if you don't agree. I'm cool with that though. People being allowed to disagree on not punished for it is the hill I'm willing to die on.

    Cheers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •