That some "Discordians" can't tolerate dissenting points of view.
Discuss.
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.
I think I heard a Christian say that very thing once when talking about gay rights.
I think I heard a murder-rapist say their opinions should be tolerated.
Lets make a distinction between:
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.
And 'ought to be violently opposed.' Which is what i think RWHN means when he says 'can't tolerate.'
All forms of nonviolent opposition to points of view are good, save the actual violence for acts.
Yes. It is incredibly disheartening to see Discordians get SO bent out of shape in discussions, I'm not just talking about this one, I include the drug threads, the libertarian threads, the piracy threads...
We can't ever agree to disagree after a good, and yes, passioned discussion. We need to blow the minority opinion out of the water and make sure it is never heard again. That's why we have "verboten topics", because minority opinions are simply not tolerated by some.
I think that is a damn shame and is something we are supposed to be against, not embracing with open arms.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Yay! We're Calvinists!
So what we now have are purists alienating people who are/could be allies, because the ally in question does not accept (or perhaps does not understand) the ENTIRE concept in all of its details. So rather than try to explain the concept, or accept that the person is an ally without that one concept in place, the person must be driven out of the fold, for the encouragement of the others.
Well done.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:15:00 PM
I think I heard a murder-rapist say their opinions should be tolerated.
An opinion and an action are two different things.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.
Yeah. "I keep my wife in line" would be one of those.
In THIS case, however, you are mercilessly mocking, raging, and viciously satirizing people who disagree on one fine point of a larger argument.
It's become a fucking religion.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Yay! We're Calvinists!
Yay! We're removing sentences from their context so they mean something else!
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Yay! We're Calvinists!
Yay! We're removing sentences from their context so they mean something else!
Not at all. The point was made that a point of view that is repulsive to one may be what someone else needs to live a decent life.
Someone may hold a particular point of view that you, personally find repulsive... However, to that person, YOUR point of view may be equally repulsive.
Who gets to decide what opinions should be "tolerated?"
Quote from: Luna on September 10, 2012, 03:30:49 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Yay! We're Calvinists!
Yay! We're removing sentences from their context so they mean something else!
Not at all. The point was made that a point of view that is repulsive to one may be what someone else needs to live a decent life.
Someone may hold a particular point of view that you, personally find repulsive... However, to that person, YOUR point of view may be equally repulsive.
Who gets to decide what opinions should be "tolerated?"
Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.
I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.
So the logical conclusion to your question of "Who gets to decide what opinions should be tolerated?" would be each person for themselves.
Quote from: Luna on September 10, 2012, 03:30:49 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Yay! We're Calvinists!
Yay! We're removing sentences from their context so they mean something else!
Not at all. The point was made that a point of view that is repulsive to one may be what someone else needs to live a decent life.
Someone may hold a particular point of view that you, personally find repulsive... However, to that person, YOUR point of view may be equally repulsive.
Who gets to decide what opinions should be "tolerated?"
Toleration and dislike are two very different things.
I have to live in a country with Republicans. I have to TOLERATE their opinion because it surrounds me, but that doesn't mean I have to
like it.
Umm, on the off chance that this thread is about me telling RWHN to fuck off and die:
That was my response to his dancing around the main point and poking everything a couple of us wrote, repeatedly, without actually stating his point, which he has since done and which I have responded to calmly. For a while there it was just "the way you're stating your argument doesn't make sense, because I disagree with how you use the word 'enjoy' or 'privilege'".
So whether or not this thread is actually about my fuck off and die comment, I actually have no idea what RWHN is talking about. People do, and are allowed to, get frustrated in a discussion and have emotional outbursts. People can also continue arguing a point when they sense someone is not understanding it. Note that a few people have ducked out of the discussion and mostly been left alone (except by people who were personally hurt, which is another story). But RWHN insisted on continuing to go back and forth without actually getting to the point, and the response to that (by me and perhaps others) is somehow intolerance?
Whatever. It's become apparent that RWHN has his own definition for all kinds of words, so literally lacking a common language, I will not take exchanges with him too seriously.
Yeah, I have this silly habit of using words the way they are defined in dictionaries, I can see how that would upset people.
Maybe I'm just an odd duck, I don't wish death, serious or in jest, simply when I disagree with someone. It's disrespectful and definitely closes off debate. If you can't handle debate without getting hot under the collar, then go find something else to do. I WILL state my opinions whatever they are, I don't require anyone's approval and care less if I get it, but anyone who is going to consider themselves a Discordian should have a bit more resolve and stability than to try to squash debate simply because they disagree.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 03:07:41 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.
Yeah. "I keep my wife in line" would be one of those.
In THIS case, however, you are mercilessly mocking, raging, and viciously satirizing people who disagree on one fine point of a larger argument.
It's become a fucking religion.
Maybe.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:22:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 03:07:41 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.
Yeah. "I keep my wife in line" would be one of those.
In THIS case, however, you are mercilessly mocking, raging, and viciously satirizing people who disagree on one fine point of a larger argument.
It's become a fucking religion.
Maybe.
In
my opinion, it has. We look like Pastafarians, only with feminism instead of atheism. It's damn near all we talk about, and it's become bitter, angry, and toxic.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 04:26:30 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:22:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 03:07:41 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:07:49 PM
Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.
Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.
Yeah. "I keep my wife in line" would be one of those.
In THIS case, however, you are mercilessly mocking, raging, and viciously satirizing people who disagree on one fine point of a larger argument.
It's become a fucking religion.
Maybe.
In my opinion, it has. We look like Pastafarians, only with feminism instead of atheism. It's damn near all we talk about, and it's become bitter, angry, and toxic.
It will run its course.
There's nothing stopping you from starting new topics or dusting off some excellent material and developing it though, is there?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 10, 2012, 04:21:34 PM
[...] but anyone who is going to consider themselves a Discordian should [...]
:lulz:
Uh, weren't you just bellyaching about someone removing context from one of your posts?
I just looked at it again in context, and it looks just as lulzy.
Anyway, you're right about wishing someone they die. I didn't mean it that literally, I guess, but it was wrong either way.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:41:29 PM
It will run its course.
So does a meatgrinder.
QuoteThere's nothing stopping you from starting new topics or dusting off some excellent material and developing it though, is there?
Yes, there is. I've lost my muse.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.
How? I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.
How? I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.
How is that Calvinist?
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.
How? I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.
How is that Calvinist?
It is LIKE Calvinism. RWHN's argument was not "feminism is wrong, get back in the kitchen", it was "I disagree that gender is the
largest factor." For that, he should be treated as you described? Mocked, ridiculed, not tolerated?
What is the motivation, here? To work towards equality, or make everyone agree on every detail? Which is more important? Results, or perfect adherence to groupthink?
No, feminism isn't wrong, and I strive to be an ally, I just don't want to see people lost along the way because they feel they too aren't allowed to be an ally, or, that they are an ally with baggage. But please, yes, let's keep,working on gender equality. I DO have a wife and daughter. I want my daughter to have every opportunity in the world available to her, and I'll personally stomp anyone who gets in her way, male, female, or otherwise.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.
How? I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.
How is that Calvinist?
It is LIKE Calvinism. RWHN's argument was not "feminism is wrong, get back in the kitchen", it was "I disagree that gender is the largest factor." For that, he should be treated as you described? Mocked, ridiculed, not tolerated?
What is the motivation, here? To work towards equality, or make everyone agree on every detail? Which is more important? Results, or perfect adherence to groupthink?
No, I didn't articulate myself very carefully.
Opinions and ideas ought to be lambasted, not the person.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 06:45:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.
How? I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:43:37 PM
I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.
How is that Calvinist?
It is LIKE Calvinism. RWHN's argument was not "feminism is wrong, get back in the kitchen", it was "I disagree that gender is the largest factor." For that, he should be treated as you described? Mocked, ridiculed, not tolerated?
What is the motivation, here? To work towards equality, or make everyone agree on every detail? Which is more important? Results, or perfect adherence to groupthink?
No, I didn't articulate myself very carefully.
Opinions and ideas ought to be lambasted, not the person.
To a point, I agree. But when it becomes lambasting ideas just because they don't mesh with your ideas, you've crossed a line. That's why it's important to consider opposing viewpoints. Maybe they know about something you hadn't considered, or maybe you can work with their ideas and your ideas and create some kind of undead Frankenbelief that has legs of its own.
Also the lambasting gets in the way of realizing you're talking past each other, like what happened in RWHN's posts where everyone assumed he was saying there's no such thing as male privilege, but he was actually saying male privilege doesn't cross class lines.