Liberal Intolerance

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
User avatar
Aquila
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Aquila »

I think liberal intolerance means that someone believes in their rightfulness and progressiveness so much that they think their cause gives them justification to silence, censor and deplatform other opinions. I just don't like the way all discussions are nowadays placed on the line of "two extremes". There's many other levels of thinking and communicating but people accept those simple and easy solutions too quickly and then it turns out as reality.

As many have already pointed out, unfortunately some believe it is intolerant to question and criticize (profanities, false information or simply opinions that are not explained enough). Freedom of speech is not about shouting out all the opinions you have and then expecting that no one will have anything to say. Also it has to be understood that opinions are not equal and not all opinions are "good". If one opinion is well studied and the alternative one is an instinctive thought that came into mind, they can't be put on the same line. This turns out very challenging in public and internet discussions where different opinions are colliding. No one should be silenced but different opinions have to be placed in the context: who says what, why, and how the view is formed. This is sometimes demanding but it's a good thing to learn as it helps reading the overall atmosphere of public discussions. But the more thoroughly justified opinions have to be questioned as well but it takes much more effort as all participants of the discussion need to have some of the basic information to begin with. One problem in "liberal" way of expression is that many use words that are picked up from academic discussion and then use these words like everyone knows what they are writing about. This easily creates misunderstandings and discussions where people think they speak of the same thing but they don't.

Maybe one problem here is that people are still learning to communicate, especially when discussing between people coming from different backgrounds (how parents and family, social classes, education, religion and other worldviews etc. affect us). For quite a long time I believed that of course most people share a common understanding but it has dawned on me that is not the case. Instead people have very different ways of understanding communication. It's not a problem to delve much deeper in this post because it's complicated but often people don't acknowledge how much of their worldview is learned without ever questioning what parts of it are "true" (I'm not speaking of chosen beliefs but something that affects us and even our smallest actions from unconscious levels). I do believe it would be a good goal to try and overcome these different ways of understanding by open discussion and trying to understand instead of silencing anyone. Of course this needs a mutually accepted guidelines and efforts where each participant has to come out of their shelters and have some self-reflection on the issues. This of course is very simplified idea but an effort to understand is a good beginning.
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Kenazis »

I was writing longer post, but deleted the whole thing (I'm loosing my english and don't find words, so this is too energy consuming). Pretty much all fra Aquila posted above I can relate and sign. Is this Liberal Intolerance (let's keep the problematic word) again another offspring of social media and all the problems associated with "faceless communication"? Or how much it is related to these? I mean problems like fast pace of conversations, lack of bodily presence and feedback, facelessness...

Ps. I was thinking "freedoms" associated with levels of action/being. Freedoms are most limited in physical level, then on the level of speech, (emotion?), level of though...I mean that you should be completely free to think what ever (even bad and criminal thoughts), there should be some restrictions to spoke these and many restrictions to act out these.
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
Kavi
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:52 pm

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Kavi »

Aquila wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:35 pm I think liberal intolerance means that someone believes in their rightfulness and progressiveness so much that they think their cause gives them justification to silence, censor and deplatform other opinions. I just don't like the way all discussions are nowadays placed on the line of "two extremes". There's many other levels of thinking and communicating but people accept those simple and easy solutions too quickly and then it turns out as reality.

As many have already pointed out, unfortunately some believe it is intolerant to question and criticize (profanities, false information or simply opinions that are not explained enough). Freedom of speech is not about shouting out all the opinions you have and then expecting that no one will have anything to say. Also it has to be understood that opinions are not equal and not all opinions are "good". If one opinion is well studied and the alternative one is an instinctive thought that came into mind, they can't be put on the same line. This turns out very challenging in public and internet discussions where different opinions are colliding. No one should be silenced but different opinions have to be placed in the context: who says what, why, and how the view is formed. This is sometimes demanding but it's a good thing to learn as it helps reading the overall atmosphere of public discussions. But the more thoroughly justified opinions have to be questioned as well but it takes much more effort as all participants of the discussion need to have some of the basic information to begin with. One problem in "liberal" way of expression is that many use words that are picked up from academic discussion and then use these words like everyone knows what they are writing about. This easily creates misunderstandings and discussions where people think they speak of the same thing but they don't.

Maybe one problem here is that people are still learning to communicate, especially when discussing between people coming from different backgrounds (how parents and family, social classes, education, religion and other worldviews etc. affect us). For quite a long time I believed that of course most people share a common understanding but it has dawned on me that is not the case. Instead people have very different ways of understanding communication. It's not a problem to delve much deeper in this post because it's complicated but often people don't acknowledge how much of their worldview is learned without ever questioning what parts of it are "true" (I'm not speaking of chosen beliefs but something that affects us and even our smallest actions from unconscious levels). I do believe it would be a good goal to try and overcome these different ways of understanding by open discussion and trying to understand instead of silencing anyone. Of course this needs a mutually accepted guidelines and efforts where each participant has to come out of their shelters and have some self-reflection on the issues. This of course is very simplified idea but an effort to understand is a good beginning.
I agree with this too. There is many times also media involved when there is talk about activists picking concepts from cultural studies and applying them in two-dimensionally and aggressively and then you end up with sort of strawman when talking about complex concepts that are predefined in public discourse to mean something they originally were not.

I think this is also important from the level of interpretations: We bring our previous understanding of world when interpreting and engaging with a text. I mean pre-understanding and there is some form of dialogue with that text.
I guess one calls it hermeneutic circle.
Therefore some of concepts might be interpreted in such way that wasn't even there. I should read more about that, but I guess it's always possible for alterations?
Then of course there is problems with definitions within academic discourse too and people might have debates on it or apply certain methodological traditions but wanting to differentiate themselves from that approach. But this is another topic I guess.

Also I wanted to add that my take on this wasn't personal attack at any member on this forum.
To me, from my point of view, in situations I have been and heard the word used was tied to that specific context.
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Wyrmfang »

I refer here only to Aquila´s post, but my answer is not directed specifically to him. He just formulated quite well some points many others probably agree, and to which I would like add some cautions if not outright disagreements, which, I believe, could be helpful in continuing constructive discussion.

I pretty much agree with the basic point here:
Aquila wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:35 pm I think liberal intolerance means that someone believes in their rightfulness and progressiveness so much that they think their cause gives them justification to silence, censor and deplatform other opinions.
And I would argue this is the root of the attitude Aquila above described in a more "down to earth" manner:
Wyrmfang wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:36 pm However, in this opposition to intolerance there is sometimes a psychological/existential attitude present that Nietzsche would call "life-denying". Intolerance is not merely politically and morally opposed but there is also an absolute condemnation of there being any intolerance in the world in the first place. In my view, this is the closest actual problem related to "liberal intolerance". While it leads to actual intolerance/violence much more rarely than is often claimed, it hinders understanding the reasons (psychological, social, cultural, political, economical etc.) behind the intolerance of others. It is not necessary (and actually not possible) for everyone to understand these reasons, but definitely it would be preferable if possible.
However, I remain highly critical to the conception of liberal intolerance. Why not simply self-righteousness etc.? The expression "liberal" here denotes that there is some specific thing about "liberality" that causes the toxic attitude described above. There might be something like that, but I think it would require a lot of specification. After all, those who are outright intolerant (that is, who either explicitly or implicitly discriminate other people in an illegitimate way) are often equally if not more sensitive to any critique to their stances, as you already mentioned. So, what I´m after: there can be non-liberal intolerance and "liberal intolerance" at the same time, and therefore; "liberal intolerance" requires a specific characterization in order to be a legitimate conception. I personally think that for most part the need to conceive a separate "liberal intolerance" is simply an attempt to change one´s own residual intolerant attitudes into something more noble; at least I find that tendency in myself.
Aquila wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:35 pm No one should be silenced but different opinions have to be placed in the context: who says what, why, and how the view is formed.
This depends on how we define "opinion". The line between outright hate speech and legitimate if unorthodox opinion is difficult to draw. I take it evident that you agree that there is a lot of simple hate mongering that actually should simply be silenced? (in the context of this forum we silence people for much lesser reasons than is customary in public discussion). Of course it would be great if everyone would be listened when they have something to say, but that is an ideal situation. When we have to choose, I think the voice of the oppressed is more important than the voice of those who merely feel they are oppressed. This remains quite imprecise right now, but I will gladly continue from this if needed.
Aquila wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:35 pm One problem in "liberal" way of expression is that many use words that are picked up from academic discussion and then use these words like everyone knows what they are writing about. This easily creates misunderstandings and discussions where people think they speak of the same thing but they don't.
This is a real problem that is also usually acknowledged in academic circles, as far as I know it. There is also a real taboo in this: academic "ability" gives actual power to those who have more knowledge and better means to express their knowledge. However, it would also not require very much to ask for a more accesible formulation/definition if one is not familiar with academic discourse. At least personally I have seen that very rarely. In most cases it is the same what kind of clarifications the "academics" give; the game is already over when one is conceived as an "academic".
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Nefastos »

Wyrmfang wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:33 am(in the context of this forum we silence people for much lesser reasons than is customary in public discussion).

Please elaborate.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Wyrmfang »

Nefastos wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:42 am
Wyrmfang wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:33 am(in the context of this forum we silence people for much lesser reasons than is customary in public discussion).

Please elaborate.
In general public forums only outright hatespeech is prohibited, and there is actually awfully lot of that too. Here we have warned or banned users for much less (being too political, just being not respectful etc.). This is a sort of safe space idea, which has its ups (allowing a peaceful specialized discussion) and downs (the threat of becoming deaf to fundamental critical arguments and just other kinds of views). I think the pros generally outweight the cons, so there are often good reasons to silence comments that are tiresome or even just out of context.
User avatar
Astraya
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:59 pm

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Astraya »

Wyrmfang wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 3:00 pm
Nefastos wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:42 am
Wyrmfang wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:33 am(in the context of this forum we silence people for much lesser reasons than is customary in public discussion).

Please elaborate.
In general public forums only outright hatespeech is prohibited, and there is actually awfully lot of that too. Here we have warned or banned users for much less (being too political, just being not respectful etc.). This is a sort of safe space idea, which has its ups (allowing a peaceful specialized discussion) and downs (the threat of becoming deaf to fundamental critical arguments and just other kinds of views). I think the pros generally outweight the cons, so there are often good reasons to silence comments that are tiresome or even just out of context.
From my opinion the guidance towards respectful forum-behavior is much needed. Kind and honest ways in one's behavior are often lacking, whether the dialogue happens in Internet or face-to-face interaction. I don't see any harm for making the lines for public conversations in this forum, because they are very wide and tolerant and based on principles in brotherhood.
“There can be no transforming of darkness into light and of apathy into movement without emotion”
― Carl Gustav Jung
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Nefastos »

Wyrmfang wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 3:00 pmIn general public forums only outright hatespeech is prohibited, and there is actually awfully lot of that too. Here we have warned or banned users for much less (being too political, just being not respectful etc.).

We seem to have quite different experiences from the other internet forums... You make it sound like it is a commonplace action to ban members from this forum. Have you counted how many members we have banned during these 11 years? Do they go even past half a dozen?

When it comes about the prohibition against political speech, everyone has known and signed that demand before we've even had a forum: it is in the basic rules of the Star of Azazel. It is not extra restrictive, it is about what the Star of Azazel is, as an idea. It tries to give people a haven free of political struggles, and let them meet as spiritually inclined human beings instead.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Wyrmfang »

Various specialist forums have each their own policies and I don't have extensive experience about them. I was talking about the most general public forums such as comment sections of the big medias.

As I said above, I largely agree with the moderating ethos here and I find this turn of discussion a bit strange. I would rather continue on the topic.
User avatar
Benemal
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:24 pm
Location: South-Fin

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Benemal »

Please, let's not let this happen to us too. This is the last civilized place, that exists anymore. Only banning people offends me. Foolish views make me laugh, so there's no anger.
Locked