this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
797 points (97.3% liked)
Not The Onion
11929 readers
4 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are correct, there is absolutely no difference between twerking and saying 6 million wasn't enough, these are completely equivalent acts.
This reply is offensive to me and therefore you should be fired from your job.
These are words you typed comparing twerking to support of the holocaust .
I would say it highly depends on how it reflects on the institution. Twerking has nothing to do with any possible education she might have received. Saying that black people are unintelligent but good dancers shows the attempts to educate the student has failed them, which makes the school look bad if they get the scholarship.
Similarly, I'm fine with people who got fired for participating in January 6th. Any company that kept them on could face a major boycott and those people don't deserve their jobs because they're insurrectionists.
But this particular girl? Totally deserves the scholarship. Twerking is not a reflection of how she was educated.
A government funded state school has no right to push their Christian beliefs onto its students, which they clearly did, as quoted in the article.
Luckily, they also have no backbone, as they immediately reinstated everything as soon as this hit the news.
We understand that. What you don't understand is that we're allowed to criticize what they value.
@JasSmith @FlyingSquid it was a public school. And they cited religious beliefs as for why they were so offended. That's a clear violation of church and state and while it's certainly not new or unique it's not defensible or right.
What if they did something racist outside of a work setting?
Wdym you want people to have principled opinions on cancel culture? We're on the internet, here we ~~doxx~~ hold people accountable for the things we don't like and complain when the wrong people face repercussions of their behavior outside their jobs
In my day we did all our racism anonymously or down the pub, rather than online, under your real name, next to a photo of your real face.
I'm going to make an ai video of you calling me a n***** and send it to your bosses.
See how this works? How do we even know it was her twerking?
https://www.wionews.com/technology/spain-minor-girls-fall-victim-to-deepfake-porn-ai-generated-nudes-shock-the-nation-638019
No, why?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences...
The paradox of tolerance suggests we draw a line and decide some things are unacceptable to tolerate or the tolerant will be overwhelmed by the intolerant. I'm sure Poppers arguments are not without flaws but absolute free speech is a pipe dream.
There are limits to free speech in US laws already, some common examples are slander, libel, and threats. There's also "imminent lawless action" where words inciting violence can be restricted.
Maybe I'm drawing a false correlation between the two ideas but in general I don't think it's so black and white as you might suggest.
The paradox of tolerance is some philosopher's idea, not some sort of axiom. We really need to stop quoting it. It's not even the only idea of its kind. There are several philosophers with more nuanced takes.
The philosopher was correct. We should keep quoting it.
Says who? It's okay to agree or disagree with the dude, but citing him as if it's a source or evidence of something is just plain wrong. And that's how the paradox of tolerance is usually brought up.
Wait, are you arguing with the concept that intolerance seeks to destroy tolerance?
I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves. That's what Rawls argues.
But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.
For example, France's ban on wearing religious symbols within schools can be seen as intolerant. That's how I see it, at least. But others could argue that because the religions themselves are intolerant, this is completely permissible. The followers of these religions might not see themselves as intolerant. And this can keep going back and forth with each side calling the other intolerant.
If the paradox of tolerance is followed, everyone has free reign to condemn and suppress whomever they deem intolerant, just leading to more intolerance. Because there isn't a way to prove that something or someone is objectively intolerant, it just leads to name calling.
You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well. I'm not trying to "both sides" this, I'm trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn't actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.
Intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance of tolerance. The former stops when other forms of intolerance no longer exist; the latter stops when tolerance no longer exists.
All we can do is give it our best try. It's better than doing nothing at all out of fear that we can't get everything perfectly right all the time. Intolerance definitionally seeks to destroy tolerance; thus it follows that if we do nothing, tolerance will be entirely lost.
The good news is that you don't have to simply take people at their word when they say things. Humans have the unique capacity for judgement.
I don't agree, but even so, you haven't proposed an alternative yet.
I did state that his argument was not without its flaws. It still serves its purpose as a thought experiment about how a society should handle radically dissenting opinions.
I won't pretend to know the answer in practice and censorship makes me uneasy but my debate is against free speech absolutionists.
Amoral isn't a virtue worth upholding. We should encourage good things and discourage bad things.
I think having the freedom to express stupid opinions is actually a good thing
Good news, you have that freedom. But everybody else has the freedom to decide not to associate with you for it.
I don't think public institutions should be able to make that call. Private institutions and individuals, sure.
Why not? Public institutions are supposed to serve the public's interests.
Because I don't want to give some unelected bureaucrats the ability to discommunicate someone because they said something stupid. Public goods are meant to serve the public, even if they have bad opinions.
I think the limit should be pretty high, but I'm fine with, as an example, people who spread abject hatred being rejected by most parts of society. I think not spreading hatred against your fellows is an integral part of the social contract.
What about someone who doesn't think that transgender women are women? Should they be rejected by society for holding that view?
Yep.
based