I think that’s just where the opg was sung in Gregorian chant.
It pulls in the multiple universes gadget for examining logical possibilities. Pulls it in, chews it up, puts it back together with bubblegum, and declares QED.
I can advocate it, politely or otherwise (but this is only a very hypothetical situation, I see no reason to imprison and/or torture you), but free speech means that you and other Dopers are free to jump into the fray. no verbal holds barred in your responses.
I agree that many topics might be tasteless, or worse, but that will give us a chance to play whack-a-troll.
Of course they can, if you permit free speech, meaning that they are free to make total idiots of themselves in public. And we are free to point out their lack of intelligence, morality or other useful qualities. It is entirely up to you whether your replies are polite.
No. The topic is itself impolite. Absence of swears =/= polite.
*polite: having or showing behaviour that is **respectful **and **considerate *of other people
There is absolutely *nothing *respectful or considerate in advocating the death of the person you are speaking to.
Maybe in a discussion of assisted suicide laws? 
Maybe. probably not on this board, though, if I read the “wishing death” rules right.
Well, you are right that I won’t actually argue in favor of older adults molesting children. I couldn’t support Greek pederastry in good faith given the time-tested alternatives of tutors and public schools. I think the most I could stretch myself on this topic is a viewpoint where pedophilia is a natural sexual orientation which should never be acted out. That’s pretty far out there but I think I could make that argument if I tried. I could make an argument for legalization of illustrations of kiddie smut (but not pictures or videos of real children). That there is no real harm if real kids aren’t involved, like that hypothetical with the peeping Tom who never gets caught. There are interesting parallels to the gay rights movement, and I am curious as to how a supporter of that movement (eg: a normal person) would differentiate pedophilia from a deontological perspective. Anything further than that and you are correct, it is beyond the pale even to me.
Thank you, sincerely. I have been second-guessing myself and with the lack of body language and visual cues I can never tell how I’m coming across.
I could also say the same of your posts. 
I wouldn’t say it’s an easy rationalization. Sometimes I do the research and type up an entire debate starter, then delete it all. Like, five or six times now. This is usually for topics that are in the news, where I do the research before thinking about these forums at all. With topics borne out of reading these forums (like the misogyny topics mentioned above), I make the decision before doing the research.
I do have opinions on current events, but I have a somewhat conservative bias. While I don’t think the administration of these forums are out to get conservatives, I do weigh whether expressing certain opinions here would cause more harm than good just because expressing my opinion might offend other posters. And ultimately, my opinion on current events is often detached - take for example the riots going on right now. I don’t live in a city, there’s no riots here, and compared to the pandemic I really just don’t care. Of course it’s wrong for that officer to kneel an unarmed man to death as he pleas for life, but I guess since me and mine pass for white I don’t have to worry about that personally and the issue seems remote. I know, I said “me and mine” on purpose and I’ll own it - I respect those who look out for their own and I expect them to respect me looking out for my own. But after hearing about it on the radio and reading a little bit online, sheer curiosity leaves me wondering what sort of reforms should be made in cities like Minneapolis. That’s what the radio program was about - but the guests spent all their airtime explaining how the problem is in fact that white people don’t know what the problem is. What’s the straight dope?
I could make a thread here, or rather post in one of the existing threads. But I don’t think that would be a good idea - if people are protesting because white people don’t recognize a problem, it’s pretty impolite to go online and ask “what problem”. It would be impolite to go and express my opinion, as I am now, that I care less about this issue than I do about the virus, or any extension of that (such as, media/politicians should focus more on the virus). I could start a debate about what police/municipal budget and policy reforms are appropriate, but given my conservative bias I will push back against every single proposal. How well will that thread go? Me telling everybody their ideas aren’t good enough to convince me, when they are heavily invested in the topic and I have only a passing curiosity. This is how I second-guess myself into deleting a topic. Who am I to start that thread? All I see happening is me pissing off a bunch of other members, who might think I’m trolling them, who might complain to the administration or even leave the board. No amount of humility will make that debate ok. If I were a free speech nut or a lover of controversy, I would go and make the thread anyways. But I’m not, so I delete my draft.
I have opinions about the looting, too. I think it’s wrong and I’m not sure how police should immediately respond to looting during a riot over police brutality. It’s an interesting question. If I were police chief I would be torn. I could start/join a thread about that, but it would undoubtably give the false impression that I care more about looting than injury of protestors/killing of unarmed blacks/systemic racism. I recognize that merely asking this question will offend people on this forum - on the radio, the guests said explicitly that people riot because this question is still being asked. The question is verboten, and rather than abide by the rules of this catch-22 scenario I am drawn to only from passing intellectual curiosity, I let the topic drop from my mind and move on with my life.
I did some limited research with less than an open mind (I was prepping for a debate or two), and I read To Kill a Mockingbird again, but it’s unlikely that anybody I know in real life will ever bring up these topics for serious debate because apathy. To bring this back on-topic, I’m triple-guessing myself and asking whether holding my tongue is the right decision and whether my behavior is consistent with the purpose of this message board.
~Max
That’s one of the threads, yes. I misremembered, nate was referring to pedestrians (especially those dressed in risque clothes) when he said “damn, I’d like to f*** the hell out of that”. Separately, he admitted to being distracted by a woman on a scooter while driving with his wife.
~Max
You are quite correct, I may even disagree with that statement.
~Max
You’re right, and I was wrong.
~Max
I am of the opinion that many mainstream opinions are “incivil by nature”. How can you politely discuss advocate deportation of an immigrant to Mexico? Can you have a polite debate like that to the immigrant’s face? Can one politely support a war, even a defensive one? Would it not be more polite to let our enemies annex our country? A man is accused of murder: the victim’s family will be offended if the man is acquitted, the man’s family will be offended if he is convicted; is it possible for both sides to hold a polite debate over the man’s fate?
It seems to me that a central tenet of politeness is to simply capitulate so as to spare the other side some trouble or offense, and I mean this in a general sense, not only in politics. For example, one abandones their seat in a crowded bus because it is the polite thing to do. It is impolite to ask someone to vacate their seat, but if you are asked, it is impolite to refuse no matter the circumstance. Never mind if you are justified in refusing, you are merely justifying impolite behavior.
~Max
If we assume the tolerant position is viable, the solution to the paradox of tolerance is to disallow viewpoints which are intolerant of opposing viewpoints, not to disallow viewpoints which are otherwise intolerant.
~Max
No, that’s still the paradox. The otherwise intolerant positions are still allowed to continue. And as long as intolerance is seen as viable, tolerance cannot take occur. So you call it viable, but you’re actually making sure it can’t actually happen.
The answer is just that, if you view tolerance as good, then you inherently must make an exception for intolerance. There is no restriction on what kind of intolerance should not be tolerated.
The proof is in the actual practice: places that police intolerance have freer people. Every time this argument comes up, I point out how conventions stopped trying to tolerate the bigots. And now more diverse people feel comfortable showing up.
The idea that we have to tolerate intolerant ideas is one of those things that just doesn’t work. But the overall idea that we should be tolerant still works as long as you leave out having to be tolerant of the intolerant.
A problem here is that you are treating “caring” as something that just happens. It’s just how you feel. But, while that is partly true, it’s not completely. You can choose to care more. You’ve already put in some of the effort to do so–the fact that you look up so much stuff means you care.
You say you’re detached from it. I am kinda, too. But that doesn’t mean I can’t put myself in the place of someone who isn’t so detached. I can imagine what it would be like if it were me and mine who were effected.
Granted, I don’t always do that. I do have the privilege that I am detached from the situation. But, if I want a discussion about it, I’m going to stop being so detached at least for the duration of the discussion. It’s a choice I have.
Putting yourself in the place of others is also just generally how you try to avoid offending. And, if you do so, but still do accidentally offend, it’s much easier to apologize and be accepted, because you appear like you’re trying.
Honestly, you seem to second guess yourself too much and are too afraid to take the risk of offending. You see the advice that is given to posters who offend too much as an absolute. You are on the other side, and need to be more willing to risk offense. The goal is not to offend no one, but to avoid the most offensive, and then adequately respond when you do offend.
There actually is truth to the adage that “if you offend no one, you never said anything important.” The problem is then taking that to the corollary of “therefore I should be allowed to offend anyone without consequence.” No, offense is still something to minimize, even if it is inevitable.
The issue with “things that are too offensive to be said” is that they are all settled concepts. Not only are they offensive, but there’s no reason to bring them up. Nothing you have put forth here is of that nature. They can be discussed, as long as you are sensitive about it.
If someone made a thread saying “all black people should be killed,” that’s clearly (1) settled as wrong and (2) too offensively racist to be said. That’s the sort of thing that is too far.
Don’t promote racism or sexism. Don’t promote rape or murder or other serious crimes. Use disclaimers and careful language around sensitive topics. And apologize when you inevitably will offend, and learn from the experience.
Do all that, and you’ll be fine.
Perhaps viable was the wrong word. Popper said so explicitly, the assumption is that the tolerant position is more rational and that given the choice, society as a whole will choose the more rational policy. The solution is his too, and was written into the original statement of paradox. Given those assumptions, there is no need to (and it is unwise to) ban intolerance unless their advocates refuse to meet on the level of rational discourse.
As an example of such intolerance which cannot be tolerated, he lists denouncing all argument, forbidding followers to listen to rational argument, and teaching followers to answer arguments with fists or pistols. In other words, a tolerant society cannot tolerate viewpoints which are themselves intolerant of other viewpoints.
~Max
Putting myself in the place of others also means abandoning my opinions. If I put myself in the place of a rioteer, I might easily be in favor of defunding the municipal police and sending that money towards education. I wouldn’t care how important police is at keeping looting in check or keeping drugs off the streets, because as it is now I have to worry whether some policeman is going to kneel my brother to death for living while black. Nothing is more important than immediately eliminating that risk, nothing.
But then I put myself not in my own shoes, but in the shoes of hypothetical me living in the city. I’m not quite as worried about the rioteer’s brother and so I don’t stop thinking about the problem after defunding the police department. I ask myself, what effects will that have? Will we see an uptick of drugs? Are shootings going to go up? How will that affect business? Will it be safe for my family? Is it worth it to up funding for education or is that a waste of money? Would it be better just to train police to stop kneeling on people’s necks?
These two views are nearly irreconcilable - on the one hand, it is an affront to the safety of him and loved ones to keep the status quo for even one more day, and on the other hand, all the details have to be worked out, understood, and agreed before the status quo can change. Progress can be made, but it requires taking offense without blowing up on one side and a tightrope walk of humility on the other.
~Max