Tolerance goes both ways motherfucker
Is this centrism or is it just a bad faith argument from a bigot?
Here in the states, even the most progressive Democrats are right of center compared to the industrialized world, and so those who are centrist are leftist by comparison, and those who are left wing are seen as radical, even when we talk about how the justice system, between its false conviction rate, law enforcement brutality or propensity for cruel (if usual) punishments, needs to be either massively overhauld, or disassembled and redesigned from the beginning.
But any state or society that decides it needs to cull the population for any reason has failed as a community, and therefore has failed as a state or a society.
Also centrists, like their conservative brethren, fail to recognize that the misery experienced by the bottom rung strata is extreme and heinous, and the neglect by institutions to act on it as if it were a crisis is heinous itself (and might compare to crimes against humanity). And this is what fuels radical direct action (even terrorism) from the left.
(Curiously, Osama Bin Laden said as much was what drove his own terror campaign, including the 9/11 attacks, though he was also pissed at George H. W. Bush’s gulf war, what he thought he could resolve with his mujahideen army. But the Gulf War from the US position was less about Kuwait and more about securing oil for import to the US.)
(And yes, left-wing violence gets into tankie territory, what is a paradox of wanting to create a functional, peaceful public-serving society that isn’t exploited from the top, and being unable to compute how to get there without breaking one’s own principles. We radical leftists are not good at this yet.)
The person making the argument could just be naive too.
I could see myself 25 years ago making such a statement in completely good faith, trying to see both sides and all that. But I was naive to think that both sides were also arguing in good faith.
But to be fair, that naive messenger would still be repeating an argument that originated in bad faith.
Heck I still find myself thinking this on a subconscious level. I can’t let go of the sense that we should be able to discuss things in good faith and make change through civil discourse.
I have to remind myself that history does not support my blind faith in the goodness of humanity like this.
Even people who have less than two seconds ago proven they are arguing in bad faith, my gut reaction is to give them another chance to come to the discussion properly.
It’s like pathological naivety, and yes, it’s just as harmful as the original bad faith argument when all it’s doing is echoing the bad faith argument.
I have been booted from many communities for asking what I thought was a genuine question. And at first been left wondering why a community would ban someone for asking questions and trying to learn. I’ve experienced this my entire life and only recently began to understand that it’s not some personal slight against my curiosity and ignorance. It’s a necessary safety measure for that community.
I’m just an idiot, questioning an asshole, but from everyone else’s perspective there’s two dumb assholes over here.
That s my issue with Lemmy. Why do we stick so hard to “the left” when we see daily reminders that “the left” has plenty of bad faith actors as well? Just look around on lemmy.ml or better yet hexbear.net
Because “the left” is a set of principles not a group of people?
Same can be said for “the right”, so I’m missing the point.
Well… Short answer talking about “the left” and “the right” is effectively doing something called “constructing a public”. These are are not just political constructs, they are political constructs that do certain things. Neither of these constructs have hard boundaries and throughout time they shift.
But there is a distinct difference. When you look at the right, while the presentation changes they have a fairly straightforward citable group of guiding philosophy traceable through a small handful of writing. If you read Thomas Malthus and Edmond Burke they will sound like slightly more archaic versions of modern pundits on the right. When you listen to the modern pundits you will notice that they are very repetitive and what differentiates one from another is more or less just presentation style. That repetition of talking points changes it’s arguements but never it’s foundation. Since it’s mostly in service of protecting a status quo where hereditary privilege is upheld it doesn’t have to get complicated. It just has to justify the world as it has been and that humans are sneaky, fundamentally flawed and morally defunct but that by structuring society as a winnowing process where playing the game the rightful and just few will rise to the top.
But when you look at “the left” it’s not an easy gradient, it’s a loose scattering of little clusters of very different ideologies and guiding philosophies. Since it largely works of a guiding concept of dissolution of established aggregated personal fortunes and radical anti-supremacist framework of various forms it’s not uniform. There’s anti-colonialism, anti-racism, anti-monopolist, anti-capitalist, anti-discriminatory, pro-neurodiversity, expanded personal rights, pro public service, pro democratic and anti democratic groups, pro freedom of movement, anarchists, and acedemic political theorists each with individual theories about how to bring about a state of all these things when none of this has in living memory existed. It’s not generally trying to defend a status quo but trying to feild test different ways of doing things… So basically everybody and their dog has a slightly different opinion of what is a good idea.
It’s kind of hard to see " bad faith actors" as it were because any two leftists might have almost no ideological overlap as far as praxis. They might not see each other as being part of the same tribe even if outsiders looking in would classify them as “left” and they might all claim to be “left” themselves… It’s not that it’s contradictory, it’s that the branching paths of divergent evolving philosophies have rambled off in a whole bunch of different directions and effectively become whole other creatures entirely.
It’s almost like it’s a multi dimension spectrum with axis like left<>right, conservatist<>progressive, liberalism<>socialism and more… but simply “the left” and “the right” are popular (but problematic) terms that everyone recognises but everyone has their own interpretation of. However, if you want to be more accurate in you political discussions, you’ll have to write full page monologues and that is often not the way of the Internet. It will more often fall on deaf ears than not. And therefor the louder voices with the simpler terms get a bigger audience and reach eventhough the things they are saying might not be as good.
Is this kind of stupid rhetoric that sows the divide in US politics and it’s why places like Lemmy and Reddit are just echo chambers. Just saying people who have the opposite few are stupid and should be ignored does nothing to address their concerns and they still get a vote at the end of the day.
We’re talking about bigots not people with different opinions.
this feels very ironic
You mistake conflict for confusion.
If someone’s terminal values are opposed to yours you cannot convince them. Sometimes people change core opinions slowly, but almost always by interaction with people close to them (i.e. where they have conflicting drives to uphold or reject an opinion). Internet debate me bro shit is pointless and just poisons spaces.
As someone who actively seeks out ideological conflict, I’ve learned that you simply cannot reason with fascists. Beyond the more general inability to reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into, fascism has no principles outside of winning and being the strongest. Truth is an inconvenience. Only rhetoric matters; spinning words into salient phrases that result in them appearing better than you. They will use tidbits of logic, but often in ways where they don’t differ from their opponent.
US politics being divided right now is a good thing if you value any aspect of our system. Everyone from Cheney to Sanders agree with the liberal democratic framework that the US was founded on. Despite their wildly differing perspectives on what parts matter most, every president from FDR to Ronald Reagan was ideologically liberal. That held true for 200+ years, and then Trump was elected.
Trump, unlike Bush or Reagan, actually despises every element of liberalism. He hates not using power without the restraints of principles like freedom, democracy, or even free market capitalism. He actively undermined the interests of big business, which loves the status quo funneling wealth to them. However, the instability caused by economic woes fuels demands for change, which is easily co-opted by fascists who blame the other rather than the fat cats.
The end result is that Trumpism took control from the liberal conservatives that wanted business to win through the ballot box. He divided this country by rejecting all common ground politics, instead focusing on the raw mechanisms of power. He flip-flops positions because none of them actually matter beyond how they grant him power. He destroys the career of any Republican that have power of their own, replacing them with weaklings like Mike Johnson and JD Vance. Republicans are nothing without him now.
Trump supporters aren’t necessarily stupid, as the smartest a human can be is not very smart, but they are beyond arguing with. If you can’t accept that reality, join the Trump camp. He offers exactly the self delusion you want.
Yeah, thats all very much more likely than a large group of people just being sick of being forgotten and taken advantage of by democrats. It couldn’t possibly be that there are legitimate grievances with that party.
How obtuse must you be to just assume the opposite position must be all insane people.
Hmm. I see you read what you wanted to in my post. It’s true that many Trumpians feel helpless and forgotten. It’s true that the Democrats are mostly evil dogshit, largely upholding an economic system that makes people feel powerless and exploited. The middle class shrinks as the risk of getting taken out by medical debt, scams, disasters and predatory businesses with more legal rights than people. The Dems are owned by people who truly want none of that to get better or stop getting worse. If there’s one thing Democrats and Republicans can bond over, it’s hating the Democratic party.
The logic and actions of Trump’s followers might be madness, but their emotions are fuelled by real problems they are right to be upset about. Even multimillionaires are vulnerable to economic ruin and destitution, creating a real fear that their lives are always in danger. Unless you have “fuck you” money, you’ll never get enough to be safe. We’re sliding deeper into the lawless state of nature, where it’s everyone for themselves and your only right is to do whatever it takes to survive.
That’s why they believe that migrants are coming to take everything away from them. Someone is coming to ruin them, but it’s not the other. It’s why white men so easily believe that women and minorities have it better than them. The only reason we’re “stealing” rights from men is that capitalism makes human rights a resource of increasing scarcity. Fewer people get their human rights, but that supply could easily be infinite if neoliberal capitalism didn’t only reward them based on wealth.
Believe that I’m a close minded idiot stuck in an echo chamber all you want, it won’t change the fact that I’m addicted to understanding other points of view. I’m a sicko who faces bigotry head on and endures hatred that most are smart enough to avoid. Don’t think for a second that I agree with yeeting apologists because I’m unwilling to challenge my beliefs. That’s the funnest part for me. I only agree because it doesn’t help anybody in most cases. The cost of tolerating intolerance is higher than the overall benefit in spaces like these.
I thought you were the apple out of naive belief that people can reason with bigoted groups. But it seems like you are closer to being a member than an onlooker. That’s really the point of the comic, isn’t it? The apple is not participating in good faith.
Ah yes, you are so correct. I should “address the concerns” of bigots that tell me I shouldn’t have the right to exist, and that I’m going to rape fellow women in the bathroom. My mistake.
Just because you have neither the patience nor creativity needed to accomplish that doesnt mean its impossible. Your statement says more about yourself than the “bigots” you dislike.
If you can reason people out of the hatred, why do we still have any people at all denying the Holocaust happened? The Nazis documented it thoroughly.
You sure showed me! 👏👏👏
What the hell lol, is this real? Them not wanting to interact with people who’d rather have them dead says WHAT exactly?
If bigots are allowed to redefine violence as an opinion, it is only reasonable to redefine “addressing the concerns” of bigots as punching them in the face.
I like the way you think!
Theres a few people who are arguing in bad faith whose sole intention is to stop people voting to boost the right wing.
If you check a lot of them, they’re right wingers pretending temporarily to be left wing
I guarantee they’re the same ones causing issues everywhere with everything from environmental policies to helping the lower class
And let’s be blunt, they ignore absolutely everything except Israel because it’s the only argument they have left.
And it’s such a stupid hill to die on and to stop voting.
Because one candidate is causing a civil war, is a criminal, a rapist and is incredibly dangerous. He talks like a mob boss knowing the implications of his actions. One of them is stripping rights
Trump is advocating for Nazism within the US, and you have to understand it’s a huge issue that is having world wide implications. His own people know he’s dangerous.
That’s why he’s being ignored. They’re often not centrist. They are simply a single issue voter who often lean towards the right wing actually (but don’t want to say it)
Violence against fascists isn’t an answer, its a question and the answer is always yes
This is such a braindead take. Humanity is networked. You can cut a link, but you can’t disconnect someone from yourself unless you yeet them out of existence
Drive them into bigot echo chambers and someone has to deal with them thinking everyone is secretly as bigoted as them
Respond in kind - if they’re rational, defeat them with reason. If they’re a dumbfuck, quote then and mock how stupid their words are. If they’re a troll, counter troll them
And when they feel bad for saying bad things, offer an olive branch. Highlight the path back to being a respectable person
You don’t need to be equipped to do it all - I’m personally good at counter trolling and reaching out to those already verbally beaten down
We all have to live with these people - we all have a have a responsibility to do our part. Give them the social rejection they deserve when they say unacceptable things - people who don’t learn from logic learn emotionally, so make them feel bad. It’s ok to attack those attacking others unfairly - just always leave a path back to acceptance
Kill them or rehabilitate them - those are the only options that fix the problem
It’s less about cutting them off as a person and more about banning them from a page, group, or platform. Like banning them from a Mastodon instance or Lemmy server.
That’s my point - you’re cutting them off from negative feedback in a very low risk setting. They still vote. They come to Thanksgiving. They work and shop around you. And most people don’t quit social media after getting a ban - they find somewhere more hospitable. They go soothe each other by turning bigotry into a sense of belonging. Then, having normalized saying horrible things, it comes out elsewhere
The better outcome is that a healthy community circles around them and calls them an asshole, and hopefully a few people explain why they’re being an asshole
Yes, feelings can be hurt, but this is a best case scenario even on that front - when someone says something terrible to you and the community leaps to your defense, it hurts a lot less. I’d go so far as to call it empowering
Some people need safe spaces, because they’ve been traumatized. Safe spaces should exist for people to heal - but they should be limited and small corners.
Humans need to mix. They naturally adjust to social norms - I think the last decade has shown us that bigots who hold their tongue are much better than ones convinced it’s socially acceptable to say horrible things
Moderation has a place, but it should be dedicated only to keeping the community healthy - a healthy community is a community that can police itself. Spammers have no place in a healthy community, because they exploit the medium of communication. Doxing is generally the same. Continuous personal attackers eventually prove they deserve exile from the community. A community under attack from outsiders might need a more decisive hand to return to health
But a healthy community should have dissidents. Modern communities are just little shards of society as a whole - if you’re not spreading social norms you’re just an echo chamber. You have to spread that health outwards, because we’re all connected at the end of the day - the people we ban don’t go away, we deny them the pressure to rehabilitate when we decide to keep them out of our online platforms. They’re still there in the real world
Is this loss?
No this is Bad Apple!!
:.|:;…of at least one apple, sure.
tolerance is a contract, not a gift.
my fist is a gift to the faces of bigots
To avoid bigotry is really hard nower days. I don’t like Israels genocide but don’t think all Jews or even Israelis are monsters. I absolutely hate the Iranian politics of murdering women for getting raped and similar stuff, but I don’t think war is the solution. And suddenly someone jumps out of the woodwork blaming you “for support of genocide”… am I the bigot? I don’t know any more…
Moooooooood
An open society that doesn’t want the intolerant to undermine and topple it must be ready to defend itself - by reason and argument if possible, but these may fail because the intolerant reject reason itself. Force should be the last resort, but if all other means prove fruitless, it should be a resort still.
Step 1: label people you don’t like as intolerant
Step 2: skip diplomacy because of course
Step 3: use force on intolerant people
Exactly what makes you any different than this group of “intolerant people” you are talking about?
Well, I’m not homophobic, transphobic, or racist. Seems to be the general group that’s being blocked.
If someone wants to argue economy with me, I’ll bite. If someone wants to argue about whether or not trans people deserve rights, I will block
Step 1: label people you don’t like as intolerant
Step 2: skip diplomacy because of course
Looks like you’ve already completed steps 1 and 2…
Those steps stink, probably because you pulled them out of your ass.
You’re the apple
A contest of ideologies is nothing new nor inherently despicable. To declare an opposing ideology an enemy is nothing new nor inherently despicable. That’s how war has always worked, and defending yourself against those seeking to overpower you is nothing wrong. In that respect, both sides are the same, and that is the nature of opposition.
But I did not skip diplomacy. I did a lot of arguing, online and offline, and still do. I tried reasoning, and still do.
What makes me different is that I don’t think people should be oppressed for things they can’t control. I don’t think being poor makes you a worse person, nor rich a better one. I don’t think people born in marginalised demographics that are denied the same opportunities to prosper, tautologically lacking the prosperity to improve their lot, should be stuck in that cycle. I don’t think civilians should be bombed by imperialist fascists for their ethnicity.
More critically, I don’t think a burger flipper working full time should make less than I do. I don’t think people should have to fear for their existence. I think we all - you included - deserve a happy, pleasant life. You shouldn’t have to worry about affording medical care, having a roof over your head or having enough food to survive. Luxuries, we can talk, but bare necessities shouldn’t be an issue.
This is what separates me from the people spreading bullshit about Haitians, inciting racial violence, privatising healthcare, propping up the oligarchy while bleeding the people for every last ounce of labour they can get away with:
I would rather have people I hate live comfortably, if it means that all the decent people can live comfortably too, rather than seeking to tear down everyone else for my own benefit.
I want you to be happy, along with the rest of us.
See, this disingenuous argument works better when you just generalize it, because when you get into specifics it looks very different. Example:
Step 1: label the people that hold the belief that ‘trans people are subhuman trash that need to be excised from society by violence if necessary’ as intolerant
Step 2: skip diplomacy because they refuse to engage in actual conversation
Step 3: use force on them because they are actually attacking trans people.
Although really even parts 2 & 3 are disingenuous, because there are plenty of examples of people trying to engage the intolerant in debate, far beyond what would really be reasonable even. And you’ll also notice that force is rarely, if ever, used against those intolerant folks either, even as they use force, even deadly force.
Hell, even the law won’t do more than slap their wrists in many cases. I use trans people as an example because until recently, ‘I went on a date with this lady and then found out she was trans, and I was so shocked I killed her’ was an actual legitimate legal defense and several people used it. If we’re being pedantic, that defense is still perfectly acceptable at the national level, as several bills banning it have been introduced, but none have been passed.
Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong
Step 1.5: live in a world providing plenty of evidence to the contrary. (No action required)
Step 2: attempt diplomacy by saying that statement is probably false and its use will be reacted to with force. (Often a previously stated rule and therefore no action required)
Step 3: use force.
The fact is, saying that anyone has “skipped diplomacy” is also disingenuous. The discussions bigots are trying to have aren’t novel, they’ve been had to the extent that they are solved. No one “decided” they are bigots and have to get kicked out, it’s a conclusion.
Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong (subtext: and therefore we should do something about it)
“Oh, but I’m just expressing my opinion. What’s wrong with that? Am I not allowed to have opinions anymore? Surely you are the actually intolerant one, because I only implied that I don’t think trans people should exist by saying they are bad and wrong”
It’s frustrating because subtext does exist and matter. They only acknowledge the subtext in their bigoted assertions when it’s convenient for them.
Edit: accidentally a word
When you debate the bigots in the “Free Market of Ideas”, you basically say that these bigoted ideas are “Just as valid as any other”
This is why you don’t see Temu shit on Target shelves, but in shady grey market apps.
The rational debate is so the on the fence people see the problems with the bigots rather than just the bigoted opinions/“proof”
It’s about stopping the lies from spreading not changing an individual opinion. You could hardly call yourself a leftist if you don’t understand that
They’re not really centerists, they’re just trying to stir the pot. Jon Stewart had a really good podcast on all this on the Weekly Show. I could only find a youtube video on my laptop, I think it’s the full thing by the time.
The uncommitted/third party vote is what caused biden to drop out of the race. It could also very well cost the democrats the election.
When a minority group has outsized power due to circumstance, they should use it to affect the change they want.
The point isnt to make democrats lose its to put pressure on them to drop their worst positions, which happen to include genocide.
You can argue that you think it won’t work, but its a prediction. Noone knows, which is why even among Muslims this debate has people on both sides.
None of what you said is how anything works in US government. Biden has some crazy takes on the war in Gaza, but it’s rooted in them being our allies and something else that I have no idea about.
3rd party in a 2 party system just takes away votes from another person. You have to calculate who that’s gong to be and assess the risk to the people and government.
When a single party is in charge of the both the house and senate and there are no assholes that can be bought off, that’s the only time things can be changed.
something else that I have no idea about.
That something else is Zionism.
Do you really believe that? Biden is a church going Catholic. We don’t know what’s going on here, but I suspect it’s more money related.
A lot of US Zionists are some flavor of Christianity. It’s very common.
What do you think Zionist means?
A political movement that advocates for the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Woe, Tolerance Paradox be upon ye.
But but my freeze peach!!1!21!
ThE mArKeTpLaCe Of IdEaS
I’m voting with my dollar and not listening to theirs.
The apple fell somewhere completely devoid of apple trees and scientists could not trace it back to the tree of origin.
