And these are the people who would lecture about prejudice... Nothing but prejudicial bad faith in this entire thread.
Being a filthy reactionary, I was really hoping that the fediverse could become something like the reddit of 10 years ago, but it seems like the dyed-in-the-wool redditors couldn't help but bring their intolerance with them.
Thank you for actually bothering to stand your ground. God bless.
Nonsense, we most certainly can. In fact, most countries "worked out" without ever needing to be tolerant in the first place.
Popper doesn't even acknowledge that this notion can be universalized, and then you're just back to square one with Carl Schmitt and the Concept of the Political.
Take your LGBT example. For that to work, you must be intolerant of, say, Salafis. Then the Salafi can respond that his in-group (the faithful, true to God, whatever) are being threatened by those who must necessarily be intolerant of him by nature of their own allegiance.
Thus you still end up with a value judgment despite Popper's veneer of neutralization and depoliticization. That's where the real philosophizing begins. How do you justify allegiance to one side of the friend/enemy distinction over the other?
I just toggle based on time of day / lightness of environment.
I find my eyes are more strained when using light text on dark backgrounds in a light environment (and of course dark text on light backgrounds are a no-go at night). The only exception to this is my phone, where the battery gains from oled makes dark mode the only option for me. I hope Kbin gets a nice light mode toggle that can follow the system theme in the future.
Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler aren't just "some people", they are three of the most influential thought leaders of the (post-)modern Left. Foucault of course being joined by heavyweights like Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, Sartre, Barthes etc. etc. and so on and so forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French\_petition\_against\_age\_of\_consent\_laws
The point of course being that this thread is full of idiots who have never even heard of the likes of Foucault or truly appreciate how badly they jumped the gun here (turns out there was still some "intolerance" left). Your cult of transgression and tolerance is not philosophically sound.
Yeah, irresponsible is the best word for it.
It's very tiresome to observe at length.
Yeah I get where you're coming from but this all hinges on the concept of Popper's Open Society taken to its most extreme.
Have you ever considered why this whole "children must be able to see drag shows" notion didn't show up just 20 years ago?
Idk, this kind of devil-on-the-wall "this is trans GENOCIDE" rhetoric when it comes to shit like increasing penalties for indecent exposure and not allowing children to attend drag shows really just says the quiet part out loud.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article263759218.html
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-sex-offender-who-attacked-29765751
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1651861965235539969?lang=en
There you go, now hit me with the priests of the past month.
The main crit lit course was undergrad and at a European uni (with an American professor) so it was all pretty superficial, but the prof didn't exactly volunteer the ugly sides of these thinkers (as he most certainly would have done with a Carl Schmitt or a Heidegger). The other course (also undergrad) was even less rigorous, just a quick once-over of the basics of oppression and yada yada, namedropping Marcuse/Foucault/Derrida but never dissecting them.
The point of mentioning this wasn't to say that I'm some kind of particular expert on these thinkers (I am not) but rather that my experience with their presentation is that they are left as likeable as possible (there were years between me hearing of Foucault and realizing he was a nonce, whereas people usually learn that someone like Heidegger was a nazi before they even know how his name is pronounced).
I 100% agree on the uselessness of the left/right-dichotomy as it stands, particularly because the radical right gets lumped in with liberal individualists like Adam Smith/Ayn Rand/Ronald Reagan etc., which makes no sense at all.
Still, there are some essential axioms that can be used to distinguish the left and the right, those being equality+liberalism vs. disparity+illiberalism. There is a natural reason that the pedophiles aren't garnering support among the ranks of the far right and that white nationalists won't find much love among the far left.
Survived just fine through Judith Butler though.
When I took a couple of critical theory oriented literary courses at uni these were the names that came up again and again, but there was no mention of their ultimate transgression. This is how the myth of an entirely dangerous right and an entirely harmless left is propagated. Just don't mention the bad parts of the left and create one continuous antagonist group out of everyone from Ted Cruz to Heinrich Himmler. Every rightist is implicated in the actions of their most radical thought leaders, but leftists are afforded the luxury of not associating with characters like Foucault, Lenin or Mao at their own leisure.
And I know that you know this but a "thought leader" doesn't need to be alive, so that's not really an argument. These people are tremendously influential and popular in our time (and Butler and Rubin aren't even dead), as demonstrated by the negative response to the Derrick Jensen lecture clip linked above.
How predictable. Do you have any actual arguments beyond smearing the sources? Don't believe your lying eyes, right? Can you point to any factual inaccuracies in the articles linked or does your reasoning end at "they report inconvenient facts that don't show up on the NYT/CNN/MSNBC/BBC front pages so they must be biased".
And here's the source for the tweet. Didn't take a whole lot of effort to find (not that you even bothered ofc): https://www.cronicaviva.com.pe/pnp-arresta-a-sujeto-vestido-de-alumna-en-colegio-de-mujeres-en-huancayo-videos/
"not in English--or based in the US--which makes determining the veracity difficult."
Not my fault that you can't read Spanish, and are you seriously implying that a Peruvian source should be automatically regarded as dubious? Un gringo tipico...
"you aren't acting in good faith"
lol
I get that you'd like nothing but Pravda articles confirming that the revolution is going swimmingly, but when you can't even provide a single example of a factual inaccuracy in any of the articles provided it's really hard to take you seriously.
Salafism kind of requires you to be intolerant of people for who they are, but let's not pretend these people would lend the same "live and let live" thinking to a Catholic bishop who espoused the views of a Salafi mullah when it comes to homosexuals.
But I get where you're coming from and your position is entirely reasonable. The problem is just that your attitude is not that of this thread and the OP. If you actually look at this 10A guy's posts you'll find nothing that merits the response you see in this thread. I'd say there's a long way to overstepping the threshold of civility on that part, but in this thread people already want heads on spikes, so to speak.
The right has done nothing but contract for the past 150 years. "Conservatives" have continually met leftists in the middle and conserved nothing. In my country even the state church allows gay and female clergy now. I'm not a christian, but that's the perfect example of the Right relenting even in their supposedly most sacred institution (though I suppose the bank has taken over that role for conservatives of the past century). Meanwhile, the Left has expanded at such a rate that the revolutionaries of two generations ago sound like today's reactionaries.
All right, I'll put it in as simple terms as possible, as you seem to need it.
I disagreed with that quote so intensely that I couldn't even bring myself to explain why. I just needed you to know that the act of sharing that quote, let alone coming up with it, was pure cringe. Seriously "in this moment I am euphoric"-tier. I mean "the unjust man"... just cmon. It's basically just telling you to be unyielding. Nothing but banal, vapid propaganda that could just as easily adorn the walls of the NSDAP as the NAACP.
"I simply asked if you have value." All right, let me "simply ask" you if colored people have value. Infer anything from that?
"Disagree with me!? Life devoid of value!"
Typical heckin wholesome leftist.
"Misinformers" "Bad actors"
Do people actually take these terms seriously?
Are you quoting someone or did that pure cringe emanate from your own being?
who?
such as?
the tu quoque is almost too tempting here
this is a joke, right?
Oh, and I didn't know people like Henry Ford and the 2nd Baron Trent were "far-left". I guess the horseshoe really does exist after all.
Stop beating strawmen, your ideological muscles are only gonna atrophy further.