That's a shame, because that's how freedom of speech functions. It's also a great way to show the world the higher road one chooses to walk when their opponents refuse.
ihavenopeopleskills
joined 1 year ago
There's a difference between thinking of something and doing it. Many leftists dream of punching conservatives in the face but only a few of them actually do. The ones who refrained do not rate punishment from the government over a thoughtcrime.
Please don't play such behaviors off as if they're exclusively exhibited by conservatives. There's plenty of said behavior by those identifying as progressives as well.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions and behaviors. Cancelation happens both ways. Its occurrence or lack thereof can be influenced but ultimately not controlled by the subject person.
I'm glad we agree that win/win situations exist, that life isn't a zero-sum game as George Carlin (tongue-in-cheek, I hope) suggests in "Free-Floating Hostility."
Thank you for your respectful explanation.
I must point out, however, that those in the community the dissenter joins don't necessarily change their views, either. If we're going to hand out blame, then it's a double-edged sword.
So wait til they start killing people openly before we identify their ideology as dangerous?
You illustrate my point. Whether or not an ideology is dangerous is besides the point.
You're blocked
That's how the left exercises "tolerance" towards those of opposing views. Again, you illustrate my point.
No, you don't, but at that point you are no longer truly "tolerant."
The issue with the tolerance paradox is it gives way to thuggery once those with the most power decide what their idea of "tolerance" will and will not actually tolerate. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. Call it intolerant, but name something that actually tolerates more (not just "progressive" or anarchist vlaues).
If the left wants to be intolerant of a given group, that's a fine, debatable position to have. In that case, however, it's intellectually dishonest to refer to such a position as "tolerant."
If "tolerance" tolerates intolerance, then who decides what is "tolerance" and "intolerance?"
Just admit who you don't like and whose rights you want suppressed. Clearly the left has a problem with certain groups of people or they wouldn't be beating up demonstrators of opposing ideals in an unprovoked manner.
It's my native tongue and I admit it has hardly a shred of orthagonality.