LogicalFallacy

Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

So I've been reading through the ToT as I do, and have noticed a lot of labels being thrown around: Bigot, tolerance, intolerant.... and it generally degrades from there.

 

So I got to thinking. Being a more central type I tend to agree with a lot from both sides with any discussion, but also disagree with a lot - this tends to result in being thwacked by both sides! That aside, my thoughts on this are below. I thought we could have somewhat of a decent discussion around the title subject, and I think free speech may pop up in the conversation also. I wanted to place the thread here, rather than ToT in an effort to get actual discussion about the topic, hopefully without mankee flinging, or to much politics. Of course it will be thrown into the ToT by a strong armed persona here if it does degrade.... so lets try and have a (probably heated) but decent conversation.

 

Let me open the discussion thusly:

 

I have a problem with calling someone a bigot (Even if I think they are) By calling someone a bigot, doesn't this make that person a bigot? A bigot is basically a person who is intolerant of the views and opinions of others. By telling someone else their thoughts, values, and opinions don't count because they are intolerant you are essentially being the very thing you are railing against. In saying that your opinion is bigoted therefore I won't tolerated it you are being intolerant yourself... simply because you think your cause is just and theirs isn't.

 

Now on the contra side, this line of thinking can be dangerous because it can give the Hitler types credibility by saying well you can't be intolerant of his opinion or else you are the bigot. So there needs to be limits I agree. For me, my hard limit (I.e. the limit at which I won't negotiate past) is where someone from saying I don't like these people and they are disgusting, to I don't like these people therefore kill them. (Or incite any violence towards them... I'm not sure on my position about verbal or written 'violence' yet)

 

We might not like another's opinion, or views on a subject (Just read the ToT!) but does this mean we should or give us the right to start calling them bigots... and does this very intolerance of their intolerance make us intolerant?

 

Thoughts on this?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I have a problem with calling someone a bigot (Even if I think they are) By calling someone a bigot, doesn't this make that person a bigot? A bigot is basically a person who is intolerant of the views and opinions of others. By telling someone else their thoughts, values, and opinions don't count because they are intolerant you are essentially being the very thing you are railing against. In saying that your opinion is bigoted therefore I won't tolerated it you are being intolerant yourself... simply because you think your cause is just and theirs isn't.

 

Sounds like genius to me, but I haven't looked up the technical definition(s) yet to weigh out how many ways some one might define this. After what happened with me and the Dude, that's something I won't forget to check on next time. I think I agree with you that the people calling others bigots can become bigots themselves. Or at least I agree with the basic idea that the people calling others bigots are crossing into hypocrisy a lot of the time. 

 

I have argued on social media that intolerance, of intolerance, doesn't give one moral high ground. It just pulls them down to the same level of intolerance, along side of the intolerant. I think that the moral high ground would have to come from something more strategic, like being tolerant of those who are intolerant. At least in terms of speech and thought. Physical intolerance, however, crosses the line from a personal right and freedom to infringing the personal rights of another. So we couldn't morally tolerate the intolerant if they're infringing the rights of others. It just doesn't seem correct. 

 

8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Now on the contra side, this line of thinking can be dangerous because it can give the Hitler types credibility by saying well you can't be intolerant of his opinion or else you are the bigot. So there needs to be limits I agree. For me, my hard limit (I.e. the limit at which I won't negotiate past) is where someone from saying I don't like these people and they are disgusting, to I don't like these people therefore kill them. (Or incite any violence towards them... I'm not sure on my position about verbal or written 'violence' yet)

 

 

In a way, Hitler's speech would probably have to be tolerated. But when it crosses over from speech into physical action then it's back to infringing the rights of others. The US neo-nazi's though, probably the same rule of thumb. Within the constraints of the law they must be tolerated in a free society. It doesn't make sense to have it otherwise. And yet, so many people are thinking that because they're intolerant or bigoted, then it's fair game to repeat back the same attitude and sentiment. That's just two wrongs going around and around that never seem to become right. 

 

But even deeper, who am I to even judge that it's wrong for people to be bigoted or intolerant in the first place. That's a big logic leap itself. It may not be wrong for the bigot to have their right to opinion, even though a bigoted opinion of others is socially frowned on. Still, it's going to boil down to libertarian verses authoritarian conclusions. An authoritarian from the left side of politics would likely disagree with me. Bigots could be shut down, stamped out, and treated in authoritarian ways. Well meaning people could wave banners proclaiming their intolerance, of the intolerant, waving their self contradictions back and forth proudly. But their platform would be a platform of ignorance, though. Regardless of whether it's a majority or minority view. 

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lean more towards open speech and discourse.

 

Though, I also admit that the amount of Ad Hom in the discourse on this site gets pretty tedious frequently. A lot of threads, particularly threads with controversial topics in ToT, quickly devolve into that when certain actors are involved. It isn't any individual either, it's not BO, or Fwee, or MM, TS, or anyone else. This is a group effort with a lot of players involved.

 

Then again, we do have this area, and no one to blame but ourselves for putting these hot button politically charged topics in ToT instead of in a more tightly moderated and controlled area where the rules are more clearly defined and rigid. On the other hand, that's kind of what ToT is for in the first place. It's our equivalent of 4-chan's /b/ boards, and not nearly as heinous by comparison.

 

We can't discuss these issues if we aren't willing to put up with having them expressed openly. I don't like the idea of this site becoming an echo chamber for any extreme's views. Unfortunately, that means putting up with the worst extremes of both sides sometimes.

 

As much as I argue on these forums, I've never called anyone a "bigot". That doesn't mean I'm always nice, but generally speaking I deliberately laser focus my criticisms on the argument itself and don't contribute to the mankey toss of ad hom flinging that a lot of ToT threads have devolved into. I've also never said anything to the effect of "shut up" or "you can't post that or have that opinion", I might argue for pages about a subject, but I've never tried to silence anyone else or convince the mods to do so.

 

Now, I know some people will find that hard to believe considering some of the long form arguments I've been involved with, but if you actually go through and read my posts, you'll be hard pressed to find instances where I attack the individual rather than their argument.

 

My posts are pretty much always about what someone posted and the content of said posts, not about my personal opinion about who they are as a person. I'm not above saying that someone's argument or opinion is stupid, but that isn't the same thing as saying that the person making the argument is dumb, and I'll always follow that up with an explanation for why I hold that position if I haven't already explained it two or three times in the thread already.

 

I also freely admit that I'm sometimes annoyed by the idea that not being in a formal debate makes fallacious arguments more valid. It doesn't, a shit argument is a shit argument and baseless conjecture is baseless conjecture regardless of how formal the venue of discussion is. It is equally stupid either way and "this isn't formal" isn't a defense and doesn't shield posting badly reasoned arguments or opinions from criticism.

 

Though, I would also point out that if I was more than mildly annoyed I wouldn't be posting. I don't have the stomach for giving myself an aneurysm over an internet forum post and will stop posting long before things get to that point. I think some of us need to learn to do that themselves and when it's best to just let something go once you get to the point where you're simply being strung along because your stress is amusing to someone else.

 

Things have gotten worse recently, with a lot of open hostility and drama between certain individuals, and a lot of whining. It seems like some members are openly taunting the mod team and are trying to get themselves banned so they can complain about the injustice and intolerance of our moderators and feel justified ranting about what persecuted martyrs they are.

 

There may also be a bit of post stalking going on here, where certain members actively seek to disrupt and derail threads posted by certain other members. Again, this happens from both sides and isn't limited to the "Lhibruls or "Cunservtivs".

 

Generally speaking, the people complaining the loudest are allowed to post what they want as far as I can tell and haven't been silenced or otherwise censored despite their whining and attempts at being disruptive. They're just upset that others who have opposing views to their own are treated the same way.

 

As for what to do about it, I'm not so sure that our system is really what is broken. It's just some of the actors are taking advantage of the lack of restriction to protest the very system that allows them to get away with being so disruptive in the first place. Which is kind of how democracy works in the first place. Either everyone has free speech, or no one does.

 

I dunno, maybe create another sub-forum that is slightly more formal than ToT for more serious off topic debate? I dunno that anyone would actually use it though.

 

Plus, if we're really being honest here, a lot of this sort of thing gets started with less than serious image posts, some of which are intentionally inflammatory bait intended to deliberately rustle jimmies and start the sort of drama and disruption this discussion is about. It's kind of hard to 'reign it in' when it is being deliberately incited just to generate drama and outrage so the original poster can troll easily riled up members. It would be disingenuous to pretend that isn't going on here. Some of us are in on that "joke", but others are taking it far more seriously and getting far more invested than they should, which encourages the troll posters to do it even more and it becomes something of a vicious cycle.

 

Though, again, as has been pointed out before, it is pretty much confined to ToT, which acts as our own little /b/, and is tame by comparison to the real thing by a wide margin.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love seeing "mankee" coming into general usage. 🤣

 

bigot noun [ C ] 
US  /ˈbɪɡ·ət/
 

person who has strongunreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong:

Some of the townspeople are bigots who call foreigners terrible names.
 
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, florduh said:

I love seeing "mankee" coming into general usage. 🤣

 

bigot noun [ C ] 
US  /ˈbɪɡ·ət/
 

person who has strongunreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong:

Some of the townspeople are bigots who call foreigners terrible names.
 

 

LF has a good point then, as this could just as well apply to unreasonable, but fashionable and popular liberal views about race or religion, and that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong. Two bigots in the equation, one leaning liberal, one leaning conservative. Both portraying bigotry each in their own particular sense of the definition.

 

So for example, if someone has been consistently thought policed, over and over, and eventually turns to purposely posting "triggered" content (controversial looking pictures, etc.) just to jab the thought police and force them to have to deal with the cost of living in a free society, often times the thought police will immediately respond by jumping to the conclusion of bigotry and / or intolerance. But the "bait," shall we say, is loaded with a hook and will catch the thought police at a disadvantage after they take the "bait." The hook will expose things like their reverse bigotry, their jumping to unjustified conclusions about an opening post, their inability to first carefully consider what they're attaching before attacking it, and so on. and so on. 

 

In this scenario it's hard to say where it all started. It may have started a long time ago when innocent posts were being thought policed all the time and the people finally got sick of it and started making intentional troll threads or baited content threads in response to being told what to think all the time. Or it could have started by someone posting real bigoted opinions which were jumped on, and then later devolved until the opposition over stepped their bounds and started digressing into the wrong and became bigots themselves in so doing. It could happen a lot of different ways. 

 

But once it has, some what of a vicious cycle is underway. 

 

From there, some people will take sides and want to support who they see as being treated unfairly or unjust. And the opposing opinions will jump on the defenders and try and discredit whatever defenses they try and offer. The "middle ground" seems further and further away. Other sort of rogue players in the game, will cross from side to side often arguing for no other reason than the sake of arguing, because they probably enjoy it. They may find entertainment in all the commotion, and stir the pot right to left, and left to right, top to bottom, anything for an argument, basically. At this point who's fighting who, what's what's, original claims, original context, all seem to get increasingly foggy. It's like an old western bar fight like on "Blazing Saddles," or the old Irish saying, "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?" 

 

Echo chambers wouldn't be the solution. 

 

But a little more effort towards civility might be. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

But a little more effort towards civility might be.

I think we may be working on that. Stay tuned.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
17 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Hi all

 

So I've been reading through the ToT as I do, and have noticed a lot of labels being thrown around: Bigot, tolerance, intolerant.... and it generally degrades from there.

 

So I got to thinking. Being a more central type I tend to agree with a lot from both sides with any discussion, but also disagree with a lot - this tends to result in being thwacked by both sides! That aside, my thoughts on this are below. I thought we could have somewhat of a decent discussion around the title subject, and I think free speech may pop up in the conversation also. I wanted to place the thread here, rather than ToT in an effort to get actual discussion about the topic, hopefully without mankee flinging, or to much politics. Of course it will be thrown into the ToT by a strong armed persona here if it does degrade.... so lets try and have a (probably heated) but decent conversation.

 

Let me open the discussion thusly:

 

I have a problem with calling someone a bigot (Even if I think they are) By calling someone a bigot, doesn't this make that person a bigot? A bigot is basically a person who is intolerant of the views and opinions of others. By telling someone else their thoughts, values, and opinions don't count because they are intolerant you are essentially being the very thing you are railing against. In saying that your opinion is bigoted therefore I won't tolerated it you are being intolerant yourself... simply because you think your cause is just and theirs isn't.

 

Now on the contra side, this line of thinking can be dangerous because it can give the Hitler types credibility by saying well you can't be intolerant of his opinion or else you are the bigot. So there needs to be limits I agree. For me, my hard limit (I.e. the limit at which I won't negotiate past) is where someone from saying I don't like these people and they are disgusting, to I don't like these people therefore kill them. (Or incite any violence towards them... I'm not sure on my position about verbal or written 'violence' yet)

 

We might not like another's opinion, or views on a subject (Just read the ToT!) but does this mean we should or give us the right to start calling them bigots... and does this very intolerance of their intolerance make us intolerant?

 

Thoughts on this?

I have no problem with stating that something I consider bigotry, is bigotry. I also have no problem with other people telling me that I'm intolerant because of this. So be it. We can consider this intellectually here, but out in the real world, thoughts and opinions and words matter, and they have power. Will I stand by and be silent when I see someone behaving in a way I consider to be bigoted, in particular towards another person? No, I'm going to make my opinion known. And why? Because I think silence is dangerous. Silence becomes the avenue by which each and every kind of word and behaviour becomes acceptable.  I have the right to voice my opinion in regards to words or behaviour that I think are bigoted. If I'm going to be called the thought police as a result, so be it. I would rather wear that label and know that I might be making the world a more tolerant kinder place in some small way.  I could care less if I'm called intolerant or hypocritical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lots of thoughts on this. Some of them are coherent, some of them less so. Bear with me.

 

First, the issue of bigotry. I think @LogicalFallacy is basically correct technically with what he wrote above. Bigotry is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" (link). On the first part of this definition, declaring someone else to be a bigot and, therefore, dismissing them is itself a form of bigotry. A major problem that I see though is that in common usage, this term does not mean intolerance of opinions, it means intolerance of members of a particular group (ie, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). This is consistent with the second part of the definition. In either sense, though, it may be accurate to describe an individual as a bigot. What we must be careful not to do is to dismiss their views on that basis. If I'm a bigot, then call me one. But you still need to show that my opinion is actually incorrect. This does not follow from your assertion that I'm a bigot, irrespective of the veracity of that claim.

 

Everyone's favourite case in point: Hitler. I've read Mein Kampf. Hitler made no bones about the fact that he was pushing an agenda of explicit racism. It is literally right there in the text. He says it many times. So, a reader of Mein Kampf would be entirely correct to describe Hitler as a racist, and, by extension, a bigot. And, in so doing, he would not himself be engaging in bigotry. He would simply be describing the situation accurately. However, it does not follow from the fact that Hitler is a bigot that he is wrong. If we want to contend that he is wrong about the Jewish question (or anything else), we need to actually argue that he is wrong. We can't just dismiss him because he is a bigot. If we do so, then we are technically engaging in bigotry ourselves.

 

However, it may be argued that to engage with a bigot is counter-productive in itself, as such individuals are, by definition, not particularly inclined to consider the opinions or arguments of others. This is as it may be. But if you engage with a bigot, and they show themselves to be dismissive, then they are simply showing their true colours. If your intention is to illustrate that they are a bigot, then there is literally no better way to do this than to engage with them politely, and let their intolerance display itself. The problem with this is, it doesn't exactly make for restrained conversation. Things will probably get heated, and if you are to achieve your goal, you'll need to keep a level head. So if you are planning on doing this, you need to be prepared to take the high road. If you are easily triggered, this strategy will probably not work for you, as you very well may wind up coming off as just as intolerant as the other party. So tread softly, because you tread on our dreams.

 

And in all of this, we need to keep in mind that ideas are ideas, and actions are actions. Ideas should be able to expressed, and discussed, even if they are controversial. "I don't like it" is not a substantive objection. It just isn't. But it is also true that ideas incite action, and we need to be careful. If you repeat an idea enough times, then people will believe it. And once they believe it, some of them will act on it. A very disturbing aspect of human nature is that we quite like being told what to do. Hitler knew this, and capitalised on it in spades. Mein Kampf is full of ideas. Some of them worked really well. But, if someone comes to me and says "You know, I think Hitler was basically a good guy", I will destroy that person's opinion. Not because I don't like it, but because it isn't true, and it is very dangerous. Hitler was not a "good guy", and I can show you why any time you want. Also, if you insist that he really was a good guy, then you're probably a bigot. But that's really kind of beside the point. You're wrong. As @ContraBardus said, shit arguments are shit arguments. We should be able to treat them as such.

 

Nevertheless, I don't think that name-calling, in general, is particularly productive, even in cases where the name is accurate. I think we'd all do better to try for more civility. We should attack arguments, not people. Or, if we must attack people, we should do so in the knowledge that an attack on a person does not invalidate that person's ideas.

 

Seriously. If we could all just behave more like adults, that would be great.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain of the Thought Police, here.

 

I feel like the regulars on this site are far more Libertarian in sentiment (including all of those who have spoken here so far) so someone of my temperament's opinion should be noted.  Take it or leave it, I guess.

 

On the usage of bigot, since this seems to be the hottest topic in this discussion about free speech so far.  I used the term selected for a certain individual, based upon things he stated, which I thought were perfectly befitting of the adjective.  I was not alone in this assessment, and reflects my concern for such rhetoric populating these boards.   

 

 

Marty's account doesn't even exist anymore.  There are many here who are perhaps LGBT, have loved ones who are, and to have them regarded as diseased and truly disgusting people on this forum is just plain questionable.  It should be strongly derided by posters here first of all, if not rejected as content for viewing.  I believe in the first amendment's restriction on the ability of Congress to make laws inhibiting the freedom of speech, but I don't think that every institution should universally accept all viewpoints on their platform.  If we lived in the Weimar Republic and the Nazi's came on into your bar and loudly proclaimed the dawning future of Hitler's Germany, you'd be an asshole if you didn't kick them out.  

 

There are plenty of places online which are totally accepting of discussing all the differences about one race being better than another, or how one sex is totally awful, or that homosexuals are diseased and disgusting people.  If you continue to allow this place to be one of them, then I assure you basically anyone of a temperament similar to mine is going to left out of discussion, since we will have long since fled.  

 

Regarding JP's comments about people jumping in and making assumptions and trying to stir stuff up.  Fwee even clarified his comments specifically confirming his belief that he believes it is a disease, and has a long history of posting similar things, so its not like the thread should be considered a blank slate.  

 

I would be down for moderating against strong personal insults, if bigotry, racism, and other outright offensive forms of xenophobia were also moderated for.  I guarantee you that if this doesn't happen, then the diversity in opinion here will only decline further.  Perhaps create a password created forum that functions similar to ToT, except have a moderated political forum.  In the age of Trump, wishing people could just get over politics at the present is just wishful thinking.  These issues are really important, and to avoid them all together or make them too toxic to engage in is simply not going to work IMO.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Captain of the Thought Police, here.

 

I feel like the regulars on this site are far more Libertarian in sentiment (including all of those who have spoken here so far) so someone of my temperament's opinion should be noted.  Take it or leave it, I guess.

 

On the usage of bigot, since this seems to be the hottest topic in this discussion about free speech so far.  I used the term selected for a certain individual, based upon things he stated, which I thought were perfectly befitting of the adjective.  I was not alone in this assessment, and reflects my concern for such rhetoric populating these boards.   

 

 

Marty's account doesn't even exist anymore.  There are many here who are perhaps LGBT, have loved ones who are, and to have them regarded as diseased and truly disgusting people on this forum is just plain questionable.  It should be strongly derided by posters here first of all, if not rejected as content for viewing.  I believe in the first amendment's restriction on the ability of Congress to make laws inhibiting the freedom of speech, but I don't think that every institution should universally accept all viewpoints on their platform.  If we lived in the Weimar Republic and the Nazi's came on into your bar and loudly proclaimed the dawning future of Hitler's Germany, you'd be an asshole if you didn't kick them out.  

 

There are plenty of places online which are totally accepting of discussing all the differences about one race being better than another, or how one sex is totally awful, or that homosexuals are diseased and disgusting people.  If you continue to allow this place to be one of them, then I assure you basically anyone of a temperament similar to mine is going to left out of discussion, since we will have long since fled.  

 

Regarding JP's comments about people jumping in and making assumptions and trying to stir stuff up.  Fwee even clarified his comments specifically confirming his belief that he believes it is a disease, and has a long history of posting similar things, so its not like the thread should be considered a blank slate.  

 

I would be down for moderating against strong personal insults, if bigotry, racism, and other outright offensive forms of xenophobia were also moderated for.  I guarantee you that if this doesn't happen, then the diversity in opinion here will only decline further.  Perhaps create a password created forum that functions similar to ToT, except have a moderated political forum.  In the age of Trump, wishing people could just get over politics at the present is just wishful thinking.  These issues are really important, and to avoid them all together or make them too toxic to engage in is simply not going to work IMO.  

 

TS,

 

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with much of it. But consider this in light of what I wrote above. Do we not do better when we attack these ideas on their own merits, as you do here, and avoid personal attacks, insults, and name-calling altogether? At the risk of getting political, when they go low, we go high, and all that?

 

I'm sad to see Marty go, and I definitely agree that there is a problem in ToT. I'm not really sure what the solution looks like. But what I definitely can say is that trading crotch-shots hasn't worked. We need to try something new.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your thoughts thus far.

 

@disillusioned and @TrueScotsman I will get round to reply to your posts presently, rather than trying to rush in all replies in 15 mins at work.

 

9 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

I lean more towards open speech and discourse.

 

As do I, but, and I'm sure many of us agree, I'm for more civil discourse even on the hot topics. You go on to point out why civility may be a long shot further down in your post where you talk about intentional baiting and responding, and I tend to agree.

 

9 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

We can't discuss these issues if we aren't willing to put up with having them expressed openly. I don't like the idea of this site becoming an echo chamber for any extreme's views. Unfortunately, that means putting up with the worst extremes of both sides sometimes.

 

So this leads to my question about tolerance - if we take the latest topic in ToT about kissing fathers with that image that a child could have predicted the outcome of posting, and the views expressed surrounding it, I guess my question is should we tolerate such and respond (In this case) Fwee without immediately resorting to posting "You're a bigot for posting that" style of response posts? I'm not suggesting we should let a persons views go unchallenged, especially when we disagree with them and consider the view to be detrimental to societal wellbeing. But we should respond with argument as to why their view is wrong without resorting to cheap labels like bigot etc.

 

Lets face it, if we are talking about you (Generic you) thinking that X is bad for society, but another thinks the opposite is bad for society, you are both concerned about societal wellbeing. But to call the other a bigot because you are intolerant of their views about what's good for society makes you a bigot.

 

9 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

As for what to do about it, I'm not so sure that our system is really what is broken. It's just some of the actors are taking advantage of the lack of restriction to protest the very system that allows them to get away with being so disruptive in the first place. Which is kind of how democracy works in the first place. Either everyone has free speech, or no one does.

 

Plus, if we're really being honest here, a lot of this sort of thing gets started with less than serious image posts, some of which are intentionally inflammatory bait intended to deliberately rustle jimmies and start the sort of drama and disruption this discussion is about. It's kind of hard to 'reign it in' when it is being deliberately incited just to generate drama and outrage so the original poster can troll easily riled up members. It would be disingenuous to pretend that isn't going on here. Some of us are in on that "joke", but others are taking it far more seriously and getting far more invested than they should, which encourages the troll posters to do it even more and it becomes something of a vicious cycle.

 

My only issue regarding the free reign argument is the effect it has on some very vulnerable members that come though here and see it. And we've hashed this particular rabbit hole multiple times.

 

41 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I have no problem with stating that something I consider bigotry, is bigotry. I also have no problem with other people telling me that I'm intolerant because of this. So be it. We can consider this intellectually here, but out in the real world, thoughts and opinions and words matter, and they have power. Will I stand by and be silent when I see someone behaving in a way I consider to be bigoted, in particular towards another person? No, I'm going to make my opinion known. And why? Because I think silence is dangerous. Silence becomes the avenue by which each and every kind of word and behaviour becomes acceptable.  I have the right to voice my opinion in regards to words or behaviour that I think are bigoted. If I'm going to be called the thought police as a result, so be it. I would rather wear that label and know that I might be making the world a more tolerant kinder place in some small way.  I could care less if I'm called intolerant or hypocritical.

 

 

At no point am I suggesting silence. What I am suggesting is that by resorting to calling someone a bigot because of their views you essentially become what you call the other.

 

I agree that people do need to state their views, those views will be disagreed with by some, and agreed with by others, and discourse needs to be about those views, but I do not see any benefit whatsoever to resort to what is essentially name calling.

 

I don't like your opinion on X so you are a bigot! Well congrats... by the definition of bigot so are you (Again generic you here)

 

You talk about making the world kinder and tolerant, and that is a wonderful goal, but everyone has limits on where the kindness and tolerance ends. Some people think the tolerance ends at homosexuality, others thinks child molesting is fine and dandy. How do we respond when these people tell us we are bigots for not tolerating their opinions?

 

(And I'm already thinking up a counter to this - it will be interesting to see if someone picks it up. I also have a response to said counter)

 

That's all I have time for right now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I have no problem with stating that something I consider bigotry, is bigotry. I also have no problem with other people telling me that I'm intolerant because of this. So be it. We can consider this intellectually here, but out in the real world, thoughts and opinions and words matter, and they have power. Will I stand by and be silent when I see someone behaving in a way I consider to be bigoted, in particular towards another person? No, I'm going to make my opinion known. And why? Because I think silence is dangerous. Silence becomes the avenue by which each and every kind of word and behaviour becomes acceptable.  I have the right to voice my opinion in regards to words or behaviour that I think are bigoted. If I'm going to be called the thought police as a result, so be it. I would rather wear that label and know that I might be making the world a more tolerant kinder place in some small way.  I could care less if I'm called intolerant or hypocritical.

 

I don't see how one is a bigot for calling blatantly homophobic content bigoted.  There is no prejudice involved, just a completely appropriate response for the substance of the content.  Which is unfortunate the term is used here, but there seems to be copious amounts of instances where it is honestly warranted.  I usually also make arguments against their statements, to both demonstrate why the idea is repugnant, but also why it is wrong.  Though recently I have lost the patience for that, as I don't think a good portion of the content is worthy of engaging with.  

 

Tolerance shouldn't extend to all ideas, certainly all ideas should be learned about through appropriate settings, but giving a platform to harmful ideas is simply a bad idea.  Which is why Sam Harris refuses to have Stefan Molyneux on his podcast, whose ideas are reflected in many posters here.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Marty's account doesn't even exist anymore.  There are many here who are perhaps LGBT, have loved ones who are, and to have them regarded as diseased and truly disgusting people on this forum is just plain questionable.  It should be strongly derided by posters here first of all, if not rejected as content for viewing.

 

That was already addressed in the thread. Fwee clarified that he was talking about pedophiles as diseased and disgusting, not gay and lesbians in the way you and the other asserted. So there's a big problem from the very outset. Which was clarified over the course of several pages. Over and over again, it was made clear that that was NOT the intended message. That was a misinterpretation of the intended sentiment expressed by both Fwee and the Dude. So we can stop building arguments from this false premise. Because everything built up thereafter is necessarily false. 

 

If Marty left, it's because he didn't bother to figure out what was made plain, clear and obvious. That's too bad, but having said that, what can anyone do aside from clarify that Marty left the forum based on a false premise? 

 

2 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

There are plenty of places online which are totally accepting of discussing all the differences about one race being better than another, or how one sex is totally awful, or that homosexuals are diseased and disgusting people.  If you continue to allow this place to be one of them, then I assure you basically anyone of a temperament similar to mine is going to left out of discussion, since we will have long since fled.  

 

The next paragraphs extends from this false premise. Luckily, none of that is true of ex-C based on the reality of what was said and clarified several times over. 

 

2 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Regarding JP's comments about people jumping in and making assumptions and trying to stir stuff up.  Fwee even clarified his comments specifically confirming his belief that he believes it is a disease, and has a long history of posting similar things, so its not like the thread should be considered a blank slate.  

 

 

On page 3 Fwee was asked by Ann to clarify what he was calling a disease:  What disease do you mean? Please clarify.

 

To which Fwee responded: First thing, discussed at a grown man kissing a young boy.

 

The disease, pushing children into all of this gender bullshit before they even know what the fuck is going on.

 

And I wasn't kidding when I mentioned earlier about people thinking that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation. 

 

That is the crowd that is thanking the people in the op pic. It's a disease.

 

He very clearly addressed the OP to "the crowd that is thanking the people in the OP pic." Which crowd? The crowd that says that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation, as in a perfectly valid sexual orientation. This is where the tides turn for accusers of bigoted gay and lesbian intolerance. They are not defending innocent homosexuals because that's not who the intended reference was aimed at. It was questioned and then immediately clarified. This is a bigoted statement towards pro pedophilia by his own admission, NOT innocent gay and lesbians. 

 

Now it's fair game to take up an argument about whether or not it's right to feel bigoted towards sex offenders, and their lobby to allow under age sex between adults and children. But let's then stay on topic and not try and force fit the argument to be about some other issue, which is was stated that it is not. Is that not a straw man informal fallacy moving forward? It's logically fallacious to then continue raising arguments that have been shown to be fallacious. In fact, the arguments accusing Fwee of bigotry towards innocent gay and lesbian couples begin to devolve into intellectual dishonesty from this point forward. 

 

And yet, those fallacious arguments continued to roll in. Marty's post was several pages after this declaration of original intent. And fallacious in that specific way.

 

2 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Fwee even clarified his comments specifically confirming his belief that he believes it is a disease, and has a long history of posting similar things, so its not like the thread should be considered a blank slate.  

 

I posted Fwee's clarification in full, and you're claim doesn't properly represent what Fwee clarified, not at all.

 

You're trying to conflate some other topic with this thread, in edition. But seeing how poorly you 'interpreted his clarification' quoted in bold ink above, I question your ability to have properly interpreted his clarification elsewhere that you're trying to conflate with the thread in question. How do we know that you didn't apply the same misinterpretation elsewhere, and then brought that to the new thread as a loaded gun?  

 

All in all, I see this as a glaring example of what can go wrong with preconceived ideas going into a discussion and how that relates to over reacting to perceived bigotry. Indeed, one runs the risk of becoming a bigot themself if not careful. Then they're reduced to the pot calling the kettle black, and possibly discrediting their own platforms in the eyes readers in the process. Finally, what are deconverts left to think of all of this? Hopefully they take from it that we're all open minded and allow freethought discussion no matter how controversial it may be, unlike church groups. And that we seldom shut down anyone for voicing an opinion, even if it's inherently wrong. 

 

TS, your proposition for a political forum sounds far too authoritarian for my tastes, with you at the helm. I'll have to respectfully disagree with your motion. I want to be your friend, I want to be your ally. I want to support you. But I'm having a difficult time doing that because I so strongly disagree with these authoritarian suggestions. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

If Marty left, it's because he didn't bother to figure out what was made plain, clear and obvious. That's too bad, but having said that, what can anyone do aside from clarify that Marty left the forum based on a false premise? 

I won't publish his lengthy PM asking to be deleted and explaining his reasons, but this was simply the last straw for him, not "the reason." FTR, Marty is just the most recent casualty. There have been many others over the past 18 mos. or so. All for the same reasons. It's a mystery, right? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That was already addressed in the thread. Fwee clarified that he was talking about pedophiles as diseased and disgusting, not gay and lesbians in the way you and the other asserted. So there's a big problem from the very outset. Which was clarified over the course of several pages. Over and over again, it was made clear that that was NOT the intended message. That was a misinterpretation of the intended sentiment expressed by both Fwee and the Dude. So we can stop building arguments from this false premise. Because everything built up thereafter is necessarily false. 

 

If Marty left, it's because he didn't bother to figure out what was made plain, clear and obvious. That's too bad, but having said that, what can anyone do aside from clarify that Marty left the forum based on a false premise? 

 

 

The next paragraphs extends from this false premise. Luckily, none of that is true of ex-C based on the reality of what was said and clarified several times over. 

 

 

On page 3 Fwee was asked by Ann to clarify what he was calling a disease:  What disease do you mean? Please clarify.

 

To which Fwee responded: First thing, discussed at a grown man kissing a young boy.

 

The disease, pushing children into all of this gender bullshit before they even know what the fuck is going on.

 

And I wasn't kidding when I mentioned earlier about people thinking that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation. 

 

That is the crowd that is thanking the people in the op pic. It's a disease.

 

He very clearly addressed the OP to "the crowd that is thanking the people in the OP pic." Which crowd? The crowd that says that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation, as in a perfectly valid sexual orientation. This is where the tides turn for accusers of bigoted gay and lesbian intolerance. They are not defending innocent homosexuals because that's not who the intended reference was aimed at. It was questioned and then immediately clarified. This is a bigoted statement towards pro pedophilia by his own admission, NOT innocent gay and lesbians. 

 

Now it's fair game to take up an argument about whether or not it's right to feel bigoted towards sex offenders, and their lobby to allow under age sex between adults and children. But let's then stay on topic and not try and force fit the argument to be about some other issue, which is was stated that it is not. Is that not a straw man informal fallacy moving forward? It's logically fallacious to then continue raising arguments that have been shown to be fallacious. In fact, they begin to devolve into intellectual dishonesty from this point forward. 

 

And yet, they continued to roll in. Marty's post was several pages after this declaration of original intent. 

 

I posted Fwee's clarification in full, and you're claim doesn't properly represent what Fwee clarified, not at all. You're trying to conflate some other topic with this thread, in edition. But seeing how poorly you interpreted his clarification quoted above, I question the legitimacy of your ability to have properly interpreted his clarification elsewhere that you're trying to conflate with the thread in question. 

 

All in all, I see this as a glaring example of what can go wrong with preconceived ideas going into a discussion and how that relates to over reacting to perceived bigotry. Indeed, one runs the risk of becoming a bigot themself if not careful. Then they're reduced to the pot calling the kettle black, and possibly discrediting their own platforms in the eyes readers in the process. Finally, what are deconverts left to think of all of this? Hopefully they take from it that we're all open minded and allow freethought discussion no matter how controversial it may be, unlike church groups. And that we seldom shut down anyone for voicing an opinion, even if it's inherently wrong. 

 

TS, your proposition for a political forum sounds far too authoritarian for my tastes, with you at the helm. I'll have to respectfully disagree with your motion. I want to be your friend, I want to be your ally. I want to support you. But I'm having a difficult time doing that because I so strongly disagree with these authoritarian suggestions. 

 

This is forum not a form of government, and I disagree with your interpretation of Fwee's thoughts.  He didnt say he thought pedophilia is a disease, he said that all of this gender nonsense that the LGBT community is pushing on children is a disease, and pedophilia is just another orientation to them.  I'm sorry, there is just no way for you to spin Fwee's post and it not be incredibly insulted and indeed prejudiced.  I also found much of your suggestions about homosexuality and pedophilia quite wrong, there are plenty of men who abuse children who are totally otherwise straight, sexual abuse goes way beyond sexual attraction and into much murkier waters of power and domination.  

 

Nearly every forum has rules for the extreme limits of what is tolerated.  This shouldn't be a model for a system of government, which seems to be the false analogy you are drawing.  The rules should reflect the specific goal and aim of this site.  That is if you want to have a site which is appealing to all manner of deconverted, not just those of a right wing or libertarian disposition.  

 

People shouldn't encounter bigoted content with an open mind, treating it equally to any other idea expressed.  Some ideas are simply not compatible with a civilized society, and in addition is deeply offensive to many posters here.  So you can keep the unlimited freedom, and it will either turn into an echo chamber or someone else will come around and fling the mankee.  Or some kind of change, such as a separate private forum, or increased moderation.  

 

I doubt either of those will happen knoeing this place, but I just thought this discussion could use some diversity of opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I have no problem with stating that something I consider bigotry, is bigotry. I also have no problem with other people telling me that I'm intolerant because of this. So be it.

 

Now for this. 

 

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I would rather wear that label and know that I might be making the world a more tolerant kinder place in some small way.  I could care less if I'm called intolerant or hypocritical.

 

You have to admit, making the world a more tolerant kinder place, by applying intolerance to those you don't like, seems like a difficult methodology to achieve the stated goal. Just sayin. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The fact that we are having this discussion speaks to a problem, imo. I don't have much else to say on the topic, but I will say that I've been on this site for a year. In the beginning, I really enjoyed it and found it very helpful. I still do, but that has been overshadowed by the sheer amount of shit slinging, insults being thrown, and in general, the level of non-constructive dialogue that is occurring. As a result, I no longer enjoy visiting here, and don't feel like contributing much, and I think my days on ex-c are coming to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, florduh said:

I won't publish his lengthy PM asking to be deleted and explaining his reasons, but this was simply the last straw for him, not "the reason." FTR, Marty is just the most recent casualty. There have been many others over the past 18 mos. or so. All for the same reasons. It's a mystery, right? 

 

I too have been PM'd before some of these people have left. Materialistic atheist dominance is the most complained about issue I've been made aware of. I don't why these people contacted me to tell me about it, aside from my being outspoken about being sympathetic to ex christian spirituality. I'm not naming names, but I've been disappointed in these losses. I've tried to bridge some gaps between the spiritual minded and not spiritual minded, but with little success. Another issue I'm hearing about is distaste for ToT. That's why I've been trying to help mediate between factions. But that's not going so well either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Now for this. 

 

 

You have to admit, making the world a more tolerant kinder place, by applying intolerance to those you don't like, seems like a difficult methodology to achieve the stated goal. Just sayin. 

Its not intolerance for people we don't like, its intolerance for divisive and repugnant ideas which belong in the dust bin of history.  I will defend the first amendment right of Nazi's to not be locked up automatically without committing a crime, but if they showed up to my forum (hypothetically) preaching the next Jewish holocaust, then they would get booted.  

 

Intolerance for intolerant ideas is not a double standard, it is the logical application of the sentiment which seeks to be as inclusive as possible.  Is this current policy making the forum more or less inclusive for potential Ex-Christians?  I would argue less, and the trolling and threads with very questionable content pretty much make that so.  As the exodus and statements of many other posters besides myself make plain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Now for this. 

 

 

You have to admit, making the world a more tolerant kinder place, by applying intolerance to those you don't like, seems like a difficult methodology to achieve the stated goal. Just sayin. 

I'm pretty sure I specified that it was behaviour and use of language that I objected to, and not people that I "don't like." In any case, I'm tired of the topic and don't feel like hashing it out, because I disagree here and that's just the way it is - I will continue to call out intolerant behavior as I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

I'm sorry, there is just no way for you to spin Fwee's post and it not be incredibly insulted and indeed prejudiced. 

 

There's no need, you've already spun it. I posted the relevant quote. And the Dude went on to confirm what he meant as well, which is the same thing. But you want it to be interpreted differently. You want the conflict in that way.

 

But back to disillusions points, let's say that it is bigoted. Would he still not be able to make the post? What if he said, no Josh, you're wrong, I meant that I'm literally intolerant of gays and lesbians, not just pedophiles. We shut this down? Or we ignore the post and let it fade away with no further comments? When I was moderating, all variety of kooks from the conspiracy theory world would make posts that we'd allow, but they'd go completely unanswered and drift down down the list and off of page 1. And the same with many troll threads. Murdock and the others didn't believe in censoring posts. So strongly that we'd pretty much allow anything. Apologist's would cry if we censored them, so we wouldn't. 

 

I think you underestimate the power of ignoring content that you disagree with or don't personally fancy. The thread in question could have easily gone unresponded to and fading away into insignificance if people chose not to engage it. I didn't engage it until the third page, and I only did in order to defend Fwee after reading him defend himself. He was getting bullied, I stepped in to support him. He's posting controversial things because you guys keep thought policing him. You play a pivotal role in why things are the way that they are. Consider that. And then you leave because of why things are the way they are, when you yourself are probably a large contributing factor behind why you're unhappy. What would these things be without yourself and others feeding into them negatively? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Its not intolerance for people we don't like, its intolerance for divisive and repugnant ideas which belong in the dust bin of history.  I will defend the first amendment right of Nazi's to not be locked up automatically without committing a crime, but if they showed up to my forum (hypothetically) preaching the next Jewish holocaust, then they would get booted.  

 

I see your point about not conflating forums with government policy. Granted, they aren't the same thing. But I may be more inclined to allowing them to speak and simply refuting the ideas that infringe on the rights of others. Even though rules of government don't necessarily apply. 

 

3 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Intolerance for intolerant ideas is not a double standard, it is the logical application of the sentiment which seeks to be as inclusive as possible.  Is this current policy making the forum more or less inclusive for potential Ex-Christians?  I would argue less, and the trolling and threads with very questionable content pretty much make that so.  As the exodus and statements of many other posters besides myself make plain.

 

I'm sorry, but the most absolute all inclusive one can be, IS tolerant of even the intolerant. Otherwise it's one less degree removed from "all inclusive." 

 

I think we're having a communication gap in terms of what the term "logic' means to you and what it means to me. Because your example of a logical application strikes me as more ill logical. You've described "all inclusive" as something "not-all-inclusive". It's exclusive to who you perceive as "bigoted" or "intolerant." This needs further clarification. 

 

What about the christians coming over from conservative right wing back grounds? How inclined will they be toward deconversion if they don't see some type of conservative representation around? What if they dump their deconversion because they conflate ex christian with meaning left wing ideological atheist? And the forum is NOT welcoming in any way nor all inclusive to them? That's just a hypothetical, or is it? Maybe that sentiment has been expressed behind closed doors as well. 

 

Why would we settle for a one sided representation of what ex christianity can be, and can mean, under the title of "all inclusive," if it's actually "not-all-inclusive" and people can pick up on and see that?" 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
15 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

But back to disillusions points, let's say that it is bigoted. Would he still not be able to make the post? What if he said, no Josh, you're wrong, I meant that I'm literally intolerant of gays and lesbians, not just pedophiles. We shut this down? Or we ignore the post and let it fade away with no further comments?

 

15 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

I think you underestimate the power of ignoring content that you disagree with or don't personally fancy.

This is all the confirmation I have needed that this isn't the kind of community I want to be part of. I'm sorry, "thought police" me all you like. On behalf of my LGBTQ friends that I stand with, I no longer have any interest in taking part. Yes, I can choose to ignore it. Or I can choose to call intolerance of gays and lesbians bigotry. (irregardless of what the case was here). The fact that it's suggested that we let bigotry slide, sums it up quite nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There's no need, you've already spun it. I posted the relevant quote. And the Dude went on to confirm what he meant as well, which is the same thing. But you want it to be interpreted differently. You want the conflict in that way.

 

But back to disillusions points, let's say that it is bigoted. Would he still not be able to make the post? What if he said, no Josh, you're wrong, I meant that I'm literally intolerant of gays and lesbians, not just pedophiles. We shut this down? Or we ignore the post and let it fade away with no further comments? When I was moderating, all variety kooks would make posts that we'd allow, but they'd go completely unanswered and drift down down the list and off of page 1. And the same with many troll threads. Murdock and the others didn't believe in censoring posts. So strongly that we'd pretty much allow anything. Apologist's would cry if we censored them, so we wouldn't. 

 

I think you underestimate the power of ignoring content that you disagree with or don't personally fancy. The thread in question could have easily gone unresponded to and fading away into insignificance if people chose not to engage it. I didn't engage it until the third page, and I only did in order to defend Fwee after reading him defend himself. He was getting bullied, I stepped in to support him. He's posting controversial things because you guys keep thought policing him. You play a pivotal role in why things are the way that are. Consider that. What would these things be without yourself of others feeding into them? 

He's posting controversial things, because it perhaps reflects what he really thinks.  You should seriously go check out the people he supports, just to get a taste or that.  Lauren Southern or Tommy Robinson, I don't think he is trolling more so expressing his views accurately.

 

If I am not here, others chime in with largely the same exact thoughts, I am perhaps the most aggressive in response because I am probably the most politically minded of those on the Left here, and pay attention to what goes on in right wing circles.  

 

We have members here who have transgender kids, which is essentially the practice Fwee called pedophilia and a disease.  Not pedophilia itself, but the LGBT ideology which he thinks infects kids with this transgender belief.  Obviously the truth is much more complicated than that, but a rational discourse is pretty much impossible when the introductory content is so inflammatory.  

 

Pretty soon there might be a lot of people ignoring the content he posts or agreeing, that will be because anyone who disagrees will have left.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I'm pretty sure I specified that it was behaviour and use of language that I objected to, and not people that I "don't like." In any case, I'm tired of the topic and don't feel like hashing it out, because I disagree here and that's just the way it is - I will continue to call out intolerant behavior as I see it.

 

What does it matter? If you go after their behavior they take it personally. The two are necessarily interconnected in that way. And that's an issue we haven't dove into just yet. Trying to separate being intolerant of someone 's behavior from being intolerant of them is probably more difficult than has been acknowledge so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now