The World is Stupid

[Politesse]

You are incorrect, none of those things is force.

Do they constitute coercion?

Tautological. "Coercion" by definition refers to the use of force.

 

[Politesse]

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

Specifically, about racism. You spend much of your free time trying to stamp out "Wokeness", so you obviously don't consider all disagreement acceptable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 think you are mistaking the terms tolerance and indifference. You complain about people having strong opinions and expressing them, both verbally and structurally.

You want people to tolerate bigotry. You aren't for it, but just that people should tolerate it, otherwise, we aren't tolerant.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

Specifically, about racism. You spend much of your free time trying to stamp out "Wokeness", so you obviously don't consider all disagreement acceptable.

Again, I'm not mindlessly tolerant. You could say that I'm intolerant of intolerance. Because it makes the world less tolerant.

I also think its an endless battle. Tolerance requires bravery and intellectual curiosity. Both require effort. So the instinct will always be away from tolerance.

Once intolerance comes in vogue it can go very wrong fast. Its worth fighting against imho.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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 think you are mistaking the terms tolerance and indifference. You complain about people having strong opinions and expressing them, both verbally and structurally.

You want people to tolerate bigotry. You aren't for it, but just that people should tolerate it, otherwise, we aren't tolerant.

What's the alternative? Bigotry is an opinion. We can't force people to change their minds. We can only control whether they express it or not. I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry. So by tolerating bigotry I think we will get less bigotry.

If you aren't able to convince people by words alone, chances are that the problem is that you are wrong. It's always better to have a free discussion

 

[Gospel]

Word salad is no reason to avoid vegetarianism, but it sure is convincing.

 

[Patooka]

15 pages over a single incident and it's the world that's stupid.

 

[Trausti]

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 think you are mistaking the terms tolerance and indifference. You complain about people having strong opinions and expressing them, both verbally and structurally.

You want people to tolerate bigotry. You aren't for it, but just that people should tolerate it, otherwise, we aren't tolerant.

What's the alternative? Bigotry is an opinion. We can't force people to change their minds. We can only control whether they express it or not. I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry. So by tolerating bigotry I think we will get less bigotry.

If you aren't able to convince people by words alone, chances are that the problem is that you are wrong. It's always better to have a free discussion

By words alone? Pretty certain using words is force too! In fact having an opposing opinion to that of an opponent is force.

Best to be beatniks daddy-o.

 

[untermensche]

You are incorrect, none of those things is force.

Do they constitute coercion?

Tautological. "Coercion" by definition refers to the use of force.

There can be passive coercion.

You can withhold things needed, like food, unless work is done first.

You can arrange a whole society that does this.

 

[Metaphor]

By words alone? Pretty certain using words is force too!

It's the left who has already called words 'violence'. I'm surprised you don't agree.

 

[untermensche]

By words alone? Pretty certain using words is force too!

It's the left who has already called words 'violence'. I'm surprised you don't agree.

The left said that?

When did the left say that?

Who was speaking when the left said that?

Or did the entire left say it in unison?

 

[Metaphor]

By words alone? Pretty certain using words is force too!

It's the left who has already called words 'violence'. I'm surprised you don't agree.

The left said that?

When did the left say that?

Who was speaking when the left said that?

Or did the entire left say it in unison?

They said it in unison and continuously. Just as every single automaton on the right mindlessly mumbled the latest espoused beliefs of their pundits.

 

[laughing dog]

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 think you are mistaking the terms tolerance and indifference. You complain about people having strong opinions and expressing them, both verbally and structurally.

You want people to tolerate bigotry. You aren't for it, but just that people should tolerate it, otherwise, we aren't tolerant.

What's the alternative? Bigotry is an opinion. We can't force people to change their minds. We can only control whether they express it or not. I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry. So by tolerating bigotry I think we will get less bigotry.

If you aren't able to convince people by words alone, chances are that the problem is that you are wrong. It's always better to have a free discussion

You are not convincing anyone that the way to reduce bigotry is to tolerate it.

 

[Metaphor]

By words alone? Pretty certain using words is force too!

It's the left who has already called words 'violence'. I'm surprised you don't agree.

The left said that?

When did the left say that?

Who was speaking when the left said that?

Or did the entire left say it in unison?

And if you really want a rundown on the unhinged responses of the left about what is and is not violence, take a gander:

https://reason.com/2020/07/03/silence-is-violence-george-floyd-protests-arson-is-not/

 

[untermensche]

The left said that?

When did the left say that?

Who was speaking when the left said that?

Or did the entire left say it in unison?

And if you really want a rundown on the unhinged responses of the left about what is and is not violence, take a gander:

https://reason.com/2020/07/03/silence-is-violence-george-floyd-protests-arson-is-not/

That worthless crap does not find many saying words are violence.

And of course to a crazy bigot on the right the left is everything transgenders say.

Even crazy Republican transgenders that won the Olympic decathlon.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What's the alternative? Bigotry is an opinion. We can't force people to change their minds. We can only control whether they express it or not. I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry. So by tolerating bigotry I think we will get less bigotry.

If you aren't able to convince people by words alone, chances are that the problem is that you are wrong. It's always better to have a free discussion

By words alone? Pretty certain using words is force too! In fact having an opposing opinion to that of an opponent is force.

Best to be beatniks daddy-o.

Sure, I agree it is also a force. The force of having a convincing argument. Which is, what we want. If we're against that we have nothing to build a society with.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What's the alternative? Bigotry is an opinion. We can't force people to change their minds. We can only control whether they express it or not. I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry. So by tolerating bigotry I think we will get less bigotry.

If you aren't able to convince people by words alone, chances are that the problem is that you are wrong. It's always better to have a free discussion

You are not convincing anyone that the way to reduce bigotry is to tolerate it.

I meant tolerating the expression of bigoted opinions. I thought it was implied from the context. I left it out for the sake, of brevity.

But again, there's not much we can do to prevent it. Today we, have a mishmash of laws to prevent bigotry. Its still pretty shit.

The great social progress we got was from removing bigoted laws. But then what? Then progress slowed to a crawl.

 

[laughing dog]

By words alone? Pretty certain using words is force too!

It's the left who has already called words 'violence'. I'm surprised you don't agree.

The left said that?

When did the left say that?

Who was speaking when the left said that?

Or did the entire left say it in unison?

In snowflake world of conservatives, whenever one person who is not conserative says anything stupid, it means it is the mantra of 'the left".

 

[none]

By words alone? Pretty certain using words is force too!

It's the left who has already called words 'violence'. I'm surprised you don't agree.

that is your interpretation.