The World is Stupid

[Politesse]

I see very little value in "tolerance", which is an inherently unstable state.

I see this sentiment cropping up a lot lately, almost always from the overly-progressive left.

I have also observed that those decrying tolerance as a weakness tend to be those who've never been on the receiving end of intolerance.

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.

 

[Emily Lake]

I see very little value in "tolerance", which is an inherently unstable state.

I see this sentiment cropping up a lot lately, almost always from the overly-progressive left.

I have also observed that those decrying tolerance as a weakness tend to be those who've never been on the receiving end of intolerance.

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

 

[DrZoidberg]

I see very little value in "tolerance", which is an inherently unstable state.

I see this sentiment cropping up a lot lately, almost always from the overly-progressive left.

I have also observed that those decrying tolerance as a weakness tend to be those who've never been on the receiving end of intolerance.

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.

 

[none]

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.

welp, this comment of yours is intolerable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then you're just being a Contrarian.

I think my opinions are genuinely different from Politesses.

Then you're a Marxist.

I don't know what it means in this context.

Tolerance is one of my highest ideals.

Then you're a Pacifist.

I don't think that follows. I don't think it's contradictory to force people to tolerate each other. With guns if necessary.

Liberalism is the opposite of fascism.

Then you're an Ideological Absolutist.

At least absolute tolerance is a reachable utopia. It has that going for it.

I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.

Then you're an Isolationist.

We're talking aren't we?

(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.

 

[none]

I think my opinions are genuinely different from Politesses.



I don't know what it means in this context.

Tolerance is one of my highest ideals.

Then you're a Pacifist.

I don't think that follows. I don't think it's contradictory to force people to tolerate each other. With guns if necessary.

Liberalism is the opposite of fascism.

Then you're an Ideological Absolutist.

At least absolute tolerance is a reachable utopia. It has that going for it.

I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.

Then you're an Isolationist.

We're talking aren't we?

(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.

about enforcing tolerance with "guns"
guns are useless without bullets but that is irrelevant in ideological war.
(and you should know that) despite sarcastic irony and satire.
sadism much? sardonic to say the least.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think my opinions are genuinely different from Politesses.



I don't know what it means in this context.



I don't think that follows. I don't think it's contradictory to force people to tolerate each other. With guns if necessary.

Liberalism is the opposite of fascism.

Then you're an Ideological Absolutist.

At least absolute tolerance is a reachable utopia. It has that going for it.

I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.

Then you're an Isolationist.

We're talking aren't we?

(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.

about enforcing tolerance with "guns"
guns are useless without bullets but that is irrelevant in ideological war.
(and you should know that) despite sarcastic irony and satire.
sadism much? sardonic to say the least.

I actually don't think it's sarcastic, ironic, satirical or self contradictory. I want to be tolerated. I want to live in a country and a world where people are tolerated. Hitler and Stalin aren't tolerant leaders. Therefore invading them is justified. Being tolerant doesn't mean putting up with any shit. It means fighting for a society that is tolerant. If my tolerance leads me to tolerate something that makes the world less tolerant, then my tolerance is self defeating. So obviously that's not the type of tolerance I'm for.

It's fair to say that I'm militantly tolerant.

I'm actually for a world where democratic liberal countries have a free pass to invade any non-democratic country, if the goal is to make it democratic. That's why I was for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[none]

I think my opinions are genuinely different from Politesses.



I don't know what it means in this context.



I don't think that follows. I don't think it's contradictory to force people to tolerate each other. With guns if necessary.

Then you're an Ideological Absolutist.

At least absolute tolerance is a reachable utopia. It has that going for it.

I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.

Then you're an Isolationist.

We're talking aren't we?

(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.

about enforcing tolerance with "guns"
guns are useless without bullets but that is irrelevant in ideological war.
(and you should know that) despite sarcastic irony and satire.
sadism much? sardonic to say the least.

I actually don't think it's sarcastic, ironic, satirical or self contradictory. I want to be tolerated. I want to live in a country and a world where people are tolerated. Hitler and Stalin aren't tolerant leaders. Therefore invading them is justified. Being tolerant doesn't mean putting up with any shit. It means fighting for a society that is tolerant. If my tolerance leads me to tolerate something that makes the world less tolerant, then my tolerance is self defeating. So obviously that's not the type of tolerance I'm for.

It's fair to say that I'm militantly tolerant.

I'm actually for a world where democratic liberal countries have a free pass to invade any non-democratic country, if the goal is to make it democratic. That's why I was for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

well good for you, manager at some sludge shop. the rest of us are picking up your slack.

 

[Politesse]

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?

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?

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

You've just described how totalitarian thought works. You can't force people to tolerate each other. If we demand it from each other we're only forcing people to pretend they forbear each other. Life becomes a theatre. Which is exactly what we have among the left in Copenhagen 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 ignore each other. And hope they learn to tolerate each other over time. Anything else will backfire.

 

[Treedbear]

...

I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.

Then you're an Isolationist.

We're talking aren't we?

(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.

 

[Treedbear]

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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

You are incorrect, none of those things is force.

Then we radically disagree on what constitutes force.

So it would seem.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Politesse]

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'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.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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