Leftists seem extremely eager to tolerate intolerance of Asians succeeding at school, Jews not being blown up, and Muslims practicing their religion in Syria and China.
Everyone wants to quote Popper when it’s time to not tolerate things their opponents believe. Nobody wants to examine their own side’s moral shortcomings or acknowledge that Popper was just as much talking about communists as fascists in his quote.
I wish Discourse would let me post JUST an eye-roll emoji, but it unfortunately does not. So that means that I have to go to a lot more effort to post an eye-roll in response to your constant, never-ending stream of “WOKE LEFTISTS ARE INFILTRATING THE SCHOOLS!” screeds.
Well, they were infiltrating the schools. Now they’re being voted out of school boards on a daily basis and replaced with all sorts of people, some of whom are the actual far-right conservatives you think everyone is, because your side refused to give an inch or admit anything about what you were doing and those were the only alternative candidates. The reaping of what you’ve sown is not going to be pretty everywhere.
@GIGObuster’s posted in this thread as post numbers 46, 53. 55. 57, 59, 61, 65, 67, 72, 77, 83, 96, 156, 160, 166, 172, 175, 178, 183, 186, 232, 233, 370, 393, 398, 422, 423, 427, 455, and 458, according to the search function. I looked back through a random handful of those and didn’t see anything like what you’re talking about. Would you care to specify what post(s) you’re referring to?
Good thing that isn’t my argument, then. For @Babale and anyone else too lazy to read before replying, my argument was that the treatment of conservatives on this board disproves the claim that 'liberals don’t care what happens unless you act on something".
That’s a good example of tolerance. Most of the time there is no need to bring up things that would upset the other person.
It’s a fair point. I do think the two things are similar. Both have a right to express their views, but bringing either up unnecessarily, and especially directly accusing some particular person, is a little different. I don’t mean it should be banned, but it’s intolerant and unlikely to convince anyone. The real issue is when the response is to try to get the person fired, or shun them etc. It’s probably impossible to get religions to stop shunning heretical members, but I had hoped the left would be better than that.
(My own experiences probably bias my view here, because most of the debates I saw and took part in with creationists back in the day were respectful, with no one told they deserved an eternity of torture; but the same certainly can’t be said about debates with progressives.)
But you also said earlier that public demonstrations ought to be allowed in the public square, even if you disagree with them (your link was correct). I think the harm from banning ‘immoral’ opinions would be much greater.
That can be it, and to clarify I meant to say “on” instead of “one”. But as I said then, I explained why I did mention it, It was to show another example of how the craziness and baseless ideas many on the right are pushing. Zoster is still trying to deny what I explained then. It fits with what is being discussed:
Conservatives who are committed to anti-intellectualism and who deliberately undermine good faith discussions, should not be welcomed here.
If it’s that, then a) GIGObuster didn’t post it in this thread b) did not yell at you and c) did not call you an antivaxxer; thereby failing on at least three out of five of the characteristics @ZosterSandstorm’s describing (I can’t say about the other two without reading some more context from the other thread, and I need to go do something else for a while. There was enough confustion by that stage in that thread about what was relevant in it to bring a question from a mod about it a few posts later.)
So maybe some other post is meant? I’d still like to know for sure which one(s).
Yes, it was meant to be.
But it only works when the people who think I’m going to hell don’t think they need to tell me about it. Or to do anything likely to damage me because of it.
Well, if they won’t shut up about it, I’m certainly going to shun them; because I shouldn’t have to keep listening to that crap.
You’ve been having debates with progressives in which they said you were deserving of eternal torture?!
On these boards?!
The harm from forbidding public demonstrations might well be greater; which is why I don’t think public demonstrations should be banned. But the point I was making was that it’s not as simple as
because in fact the practices you’re advocating allowing do harm other people.
The other point I was trying to make, somewhere back in there, is that for the person saying others deserve to be tortured eternally to then complain if those others call them a bigot in return is, how shall I carefully phrase this, inconsistent and unreasonable. If they’ve got a right to say that in public, then other people have the right to call them a bigot in public; or worse, because what they’re saying is much worse. If people don’t want to associate with bigots, and/or with people telling them they deserve to go to hell – that’s a legitimate consequence of those people behaving like that. They’ve got a right to demonstrate. But they don’t have a right not to have their behavior produce counterdemonstrations.
Posts 166 and 172 are accusing me of being the “right wing media” who is spreading anti-vax articles, because I said that accusing people of being right wing antivaxxers for posting in a thread about the rules around racism is the kind of thing GIGOBuster does that isn’t helpful. In response GIGOBuster decided that “saying that accusing people of being right wing antivaxxers for posting in a thread about the rules around racism is the kind of thing GIGOBuster does that isn’t helpful” is a “conservative” position, linked to a random article about antivaxxers, and accused me of being the “right wing media” who is spreading anti-vax articles.
I know that any attempt to summarize GIGOAlphabetSoup’s posting is a disorienting experience that seems like a trip through a Mobius strip auto-fellating itself, but that’s another one of the problems here.
It’s right there and he even admitted to it, but childish “na na na I’m not hitting you” shit when you don’t want to defend something is a hallmark of your group - this is really no different than the “what’s CRT? never heard of it, no one has ever mentioned it outside of a law school, anyone who thinks it exists is crazy” thing.
That sounds good in theory, but it neglects a fundamental part of how humans work. We cannot completely separate our beliefs and our actions. If you have bigoted beliefs, then you will, without thinking about it, treat the targets of that bigotry worse than others.
That’s why we liberals fight so hard to uncover our own bigoted biases. We know that they will affect how we interact with others.
Sure, if we could just get all bigoted people to follow some basic guidelines, it would be better. But there would still be some discrimination. Ultimately, the goal has to be to eliminate it.
That said, it’s a baby steps thing. We probably can’t do this all right away. That’s why there’s such a big push for tolerance. It is a good first step. If you start from a position of tolerance, then it is easier not to let your own biases slip through. Tolerance helps reduce the influence of bias and fear of the other, which then helps you see the truth.
I usually skip posting in threads like this because when I noticed it, it had 900+ posts and I don’t want to read them all. TLDR. But I can still reply to the OP. Conservatives are exactly what this board needs. Let’s compare notes, debate, etc.
Nope, it is just evidence that you are an incompetent when looking for things to become insulted about. The curious and curioser thing here is why are you feeling hurt when you describe yourself as not being a conservative.
No, you just seem to like to rewrite what people have actually said. That’s not at all what anyone said about CRT, for instance. What was said is that actual CRT is rarely discussed outside of an academic setting, and that most references outside of that are not to the actual theory, but to a conservative boogeyman.
Hell, if you look at Wikipedia, one of the things CRT opposes is affirmative action. You definitely couldn’t tell that from the use of the term by conservatives. That’s exactly how you can tell that they just use it for any examination of systemic racism. And that’s just not what it means.
Many that reply should not ignore that the OP did add an important conditional:
asahi posted that (bold and underline added):
“We don’t need “the other side” of the debate or whatever the hell issue we’re talking about if they are committed to anti-intellectualism and deliberately undermining good faith discussion.”
Conservatives that are not like that should be welcomed, of course as me and others warned the OP before, his past history of not making nuanced points is not helping much.
That has now got even Wyoming lunatics ruining school district meetings ranting about CRT being taught in schools here (spoiler: well, you know).
In his comment, the man also accused the school board of lying to the public, saying that critical race theory is being taught to students and pointing to the Wit and Wisdom curriculum, which is described as an “English language arts curriculum.” Administrators have repeatedly said that critical race theory is not a part of the LCSD1 curriculum.