People against freedom of speech and opinion more now.

Post Reply New Topic

That's not how tolerance works, and certainly not the way the left means it, also the left has more of a focus on opposing capitalism or at least talking about it anyways. If anything its the democrats who take tolerance too far,.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 20 Dec 2020, 3:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You are mistaken. Here is the dictionary definition of 'tolerance:' the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with..

And who decided that the left is to be tolerant of any and all opinions? If your opinion is white people are superior and minorities should be done away with or that it's time MAGA's go shooting liberals(there are screen-shots on reddit of magas posting that kind of stuff), or that its ok for Trump to commit treason. I don't see why anyone needs to 'tolerate' that opinion.

I also do hope Biden and Kamala can be strong enough not to tolerate another Trump into the white house in 2024.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 20 Dec 2020, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have never said that white people are superior.

I do share the idea that restriction on freedom of expression and "canceling", even for hateful, unpopular, or politically incorrect expressions, could be a potentially existential threat for human society.

I didn't mean you specifically, I was just listing opinions that probably don't need to be tolerated.

How do you feel hateful speech should be dealt with? Should forums like this one be forced to provide a platform for that garbage.

How dare you be so intolerant.

Okay, whatever. Consider this thought experiment, what if what you said today is considered normal and granted but in 50 years from now, it also gets considered outdated or bigoted?

And the fact that a lot of people seem to want to find bigoted stuff in anything no matter the nuance or context. That's like a witch hunt.

Narcissism?

"Nobody is smarter than me! Nobody is more impartial than me! Nobody understands this better than me!" -Trump

I can see why Pepe adores trump so much, I guess...

----------------

As for freedom of speech, it's a bit odd that the people that say there's too much censorship are often the same individuals who have a long list of things they don't want talked about - like nazis, or racism, or bigotry. In that same vein, people who whine about "PC language" are usually just upset cos they can't keep using their favorite slurs without consequences. When society started treating disabled people with respect, people whined that they couldn't say "cripple" or "ret*d" anymore. Whenever society progresses, there are those that complain.

Sadly, a lot of people don't seem to know where their rights begin and end. Equally sadly, some people seem to think their personal rights are more important than the same rights as applied to others. Also sadly, there are those who feel that some people are more important than other people, and it is therefore ok to prioritize who's rights should be protected first. And probably most sadly, there are those that still don't see some people as people at all, and are therefore ok with mistreating them however they please.

The main reason "progressives" seem to "push censorship" is cos that's the nature of progress. "Ending slavery" and "treating black people like equals" are both "progressive ideas". Progress. Social progress. Society moving forward. The only reason some people might see it as a "forced agenda" is if they genuinely believe that black people are NOT equal, and therefore do NOT deserve to be treated equal - therefore treating them equally is merely a political agenda, rather than something black people genuinely deserve.

"Progressive" just means willing to embrace new ideas. The difference is whether you see the new idea as a real thing to be embraced for valid reasons, or merely as a political agenda with no factual basis or merit. Traditionalists love their tradition, and are loathe to give it up. Look at how some people freak out if you say "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas".

When people complain about free speech being stifled, ask for specific examples of what they'd want to be able to say - like really specific, and watch them dance and dodge actually revealing what they really want to be able to say. Much like how civil war "states rights" really just means "slavery", "muh free speech" often just means "bigotry".

Tolerance often gets misrepresented where in order to be "tolerant", one must be tolerant of ANY AND ALL IDEAS EQUALLY. Which sets up a paradox. To tolerate even all intolerance is to allow more intolerance than would be present if the only thing not tolerated was greater intolerance. It's sort of like saying, "I believe in freedom, even the freedom to bully, even if bullying takes everyone else's freedom away, protecting the freedom to bully is more important than protecting everyone else's freedom to not be bullied". You're sort of handing power over to the bullies in the name of "tolerance".

If the only thing not tolerated is intolerance, I'd say you're doing pretty good - and even then, nobody says it has to be an all-or-nothing affair. It's much like the bully-bully paradox, where a bully claims that stopping them from bullying is also bullying, and therefore should also be seen as bad - but the paradox is that only the second bullying is bad, but the first bullying is ok still, so to be against bullying, you have to allow bullying...

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 20 Dec 2020, 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well it's just when it comes to cancel culture it's not just speech that is being censored like certain words, but people are being cancelled for their opinions too, which is different than speech. censorsing certain words and slurs is one thing, but censoring thought is quite another I think.

Fascism and communism are almost similar but with different window dressings.

Who is censoring thoughts? Is that even possible?

Also, why should anyone be forced to be around or hear from someone, who says things that encourage hate and violence? Maybe, if one doesn't want to be banned from social media platforms or get fired or potentially publically humiliated maybe they should not say things that cause that reaction.

There is a difference between saying something inappropriate and encouraging hate, I do not think someone should be cancelled for the former. As for the latter...I think it is good if society makes it clear that kind of stuff isn't going to be tolerated.

Not really, they are actually more opposite.

Theoretical political science: the more extreme left and right you go the more the two look more or less the same.

You are free to express any opinion you want. I am free to fire you if I feel your opinions do not appropriately represent my company values. I have not stopped you from speaking freely. I have stopped you from working for me. Your free speech has not been violated. People are just mad that their actions have consequences.

If someone holds the "opinion" that "black people are worthless", I'm not going to hire them, nor do I have to. They can be mad all they want. I'm not going to hire someone that I have reason to believe that they won't treat every customer with equal respect. People often cry "thought police!" when they get caught with an unpopular "opinion".

"Autistic people are dangerous psychopaths" is "just an opinion" - but it's an "opinion" that negatively affects people. It's hardly the same type of "opinion" as "strawberry is a yucky flavor". But people act like "vanilla is the best flavor" and "black people are stupid and lazy" are both "just opinions", and it's "not fair" to judge people over either opinion...

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 20 Dec 2020, 4:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.