Liberal Intolerance

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Liberal Intolerance

Post by Kenazis »

I got this pair of words from another topic (about sexuality, gender etc) and thought that this would be fruitful discussion. What is liberal intolerance? What is your opinion about this? I have thought this lately and I see that it is existing thing as many others see.
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
Seferoth
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:18 am

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Seferoth »

Critical race theory comes in mind when talking about liberal intolerance. I suppose one could also say how modern lgbtq movement(not everyone) works. They say how open minded and tolerant they are but immediately attack those who value common cultural sexual values, family values or are against things like abortion. Being tolerant means being tolerant against the intolerant as well, you cannot force others to see your way with insults, threats(cancel culture) or with selfish proselyting. There is a balance in how these things should go forward, if you try to change the world too suddenly it will only lead to chaos, which we are seeing in today's world. World has never been this divided in modern times(at least in my opinion). I do agree that the world needs to change, but the change needs to happen slowly, more naturally and with love/compassion...otherwise nothing will ever change, or at the very least it will change completely towards the opposite.
Gangleri

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Gangleri »

Two specific places that can be said to practice liberal intolerance is Facebook and Youtube (and social media in general), and the discussion platforms of many liberal medias. Youtube closed Varg Vikernes' Youtube channel, for example, because he speaks against the current system, and voices of criticism or opposition are not allowed in these medias, naturally because they have their own political agenda and are extremely commercialized medias. If you link a Burzum song in the FB you'll get a ban, for example. I think they only allow the pages of opposition in FB because they can control and track them and the people there.

The discussion platform of Helsingin Sanomat is a great example of this intolerance. Only certain particular views are allowed, no matter how politely or fundamentally one would argue about facts. Perhaps they have marked me there as persona non grata, since yesterday I tried to argue about criminal issues and ethics on the basis of Nefastos' argument in the commentary on the Sermon of the Mount about prisons and our justice system, and they censored the comment. The last time I was censored was when I argued that we shouldn't practice mob lynching tactics! I believe there are moderators in these platforms who would make fine dictators and who revel in their intolerance of the views they don't like. No wonder people are dividing into different places and there are so called "false medias" that still let you say what you think (of course in these places the problem is usually the other way around).

This is why I have now finally left these places for good.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Nefastos »

Kenazis wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:03 pmWhat is liberal intolerance? What is your opinion about this? I have thought this lately and I see that it is existing thing as many others see.

I think you might be here opening a can of worms that will most likely not lessen the number of those slitherers, but instead spread them in every direction. But hopefully I will be proven wrong, and some adult and polite discussion will follow instead of people just talking the first thing coming to their mind, not thinking how it will explode into those political areas that are specifically forbidden in the brotherhood discussion.

I personally consider "liberal intolerance" to mean that the instruments that should have upheld individualism and human uniqueness have actually become turned against it. It happens with all kinds of people, and is a very common thing happening in our age. We can think about any kind of subculture milieu. Those subcultures were first formed as anti-movement against the intolerance and bigotry of mainstream cultural milieus. But very soon these subcultures themselves have enough substance to form a new power, and instead of holding up their original virtue of going against oppression, they in turn start to oppress others. It is very hard to find an exception to this, and the culprit is the pettiness of human nature itself. What follows is that instead of fighting the others, we should fight ourselves. And that happens in the hard struggle of keeping the polite & loving attitude towards people that have different values from ours, judging hard only the use of the antithesis of the Triple Key, and not anything else.

(Since Triple Key consists of personal striving, love as empathy, and honesty, antithesis of this is lack of individual effort, lack of empathy towards others, and lying.)
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!"
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Kenazis »

Nefastos wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:01 am
Kenazis wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:03 pmWhat is liberal intolerance? What is your opinion about this? I have thought this lately and I see that it is existing thing as many others see.
I think you might be here opening a can of worms that will most likely not lessen the number of those slitherers, but instead spread them in every direction.
Yes, this is very much possible and it might be hard to keep the difference between the (social) psychology, culture and politics. The main approaches to this question.
Nefastos wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:01 amI personally consider "liberal intolerance" to mean that the instruments that should have upheld individualism and human uniqueness have actually become turned against it. It happens with all kinds of people, and is a very common thing happening in our age. We can think about any kind of subculture milieu. Those subcultures were first formed as anti-movement against the intolerance and bigotry of mainstream cultural milieus. But very soon these subcultures themselves have enough substance to form a new power, and instead of holding up their original virtue of going against oppression, they in turn start to oppress others.
This is pretty much how I see this.
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Kenazis »

Seferoth wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:04 pm Being tolerant means being tolerant against the intolerant as well...
This is interesting one. Should we?
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Wyrmfang »

I think there is something to the idea, but the conception of "liberal intolerance" is problematic for several reasons. We could sidestep the various and often opposite meanings of "liberal", but at least it has to be pointed out that "intolerance" has two different meanings here which are confused together, I would say, with a conscious or unconscious political agenda. The expression comes close to for example "cultural marxism" which can mean pretty much anything that the one who coins the expression doesn´t like.

The basic meaning of intolerance in this kind of context is that someone has discriminatory mindset that goes as far as denying partly or wholly the humanity of the discriminated. Therefore:
Seferoth wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:04 pm Being tolerant means being tolerant against the intolerant as well.
This is a highly dubious assertion. It is based on the implicit assumption that tolerance should be absolute. As Kenazis asked, why should it be? On the contrary, in my view, absolute tolerance is self-defeating because it immediately gives way to any offences, however serious, against humanity of some group.

Being "intolerant" towards the intolerant is intolerance only if the humanity of the intolerant is denied the way as the intolerant denies the humanity of the groups he/she is intolerant to. Otherwise it is just being a responsible human being and opposing oppression.

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.
Nefastos wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:01 am
I personally consider "liberal intolerance" to mean that the instruments that should have upheld individualism and human uniqueness have actually become turned against it. It happens with all kinds of people, and is a very common thing happening in our age. We can think about any kind of subculture milieu. Those subcultures were first formed as anti-movement against the intolerance and bigotry of mainstream cultural milieus. But very soon these subcultures themselves have enough substance to form a new power, and instead of holding up their original virtue of going against oppression, they in turn start to oppress others.
While I agree that on group level all groups sooner or later begin to oppress others in a smaller or greater scale once they have the power to do it, there is this "once". The idea applies extremely well for example to the history of Christianity, but when talking about the issues "liberal intolerance" usually refers to, the oppressed groups have never been anything but oppressed. What has changed is that there is less oppression today, which also means that those who are privileged have had to give away some part of their privilege. This, especially together with other real difficulties in life, creates a strong feeling that the formerly oppressed is now actually oppressing me. It´s a long story to point out by statistics and scholarship that the oppressed groups that "liberals" defend are still in fact oppressed rather than in power, but at least I would like to point out that the idea of "equality going too far" is as old as the idea of equality, and every significant improvement in equality has always been followed by an extensive backlash. Therefore, I have a certain uneasy feeling every time someone says "novadays" in these discussions.
Kavi
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:52 pm

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Kavi »

I think more often that human beings don't use language, but the language uses human beings.
This might sound like pessimist but if one thinks already that human is compilation of different factors within and outside, then I think this makes also sense.
Sorry by the way if I opened the can of snakes, the border of what is political and what is not is still a bit sketchy to understand. What I understood before by that rule is not to use SoA's platform in order to further advancing one's own political positions, yet because we all have some form of position in society I think each of us is somehow, at least by our talk making it implicitly possible?

So why I don't like the so called word liberal intolerance?
Let's find out!

To me, the word "Liberal intolerance" is at the very beginning tied to certain political rhetoric, where N-word, antisemitism, denigrating talk towards sexual minorities and other stuff is seen as a born-right to be able to say, after all what is freedom of speech if one can't say those words?
Therefore anyone de-platforming anyone who "is just trying to have a polite conversation about Jewry and gender-ideology" is trying to shoehorn the other way - to make it seem as actually the "goodie's" who are riding with name of tolerance are really "the baddies" of intolerance. Had the minorities, like transgendered people have equality de facto, it would be the oppressor would be the underlying premise.
It's useful tactic in the world where so-called enlightened centrism is practiced as a general consensus - both sides have fine people.

I don't know Karl Popper at all and his saying is quite old and weary already - it's called paradox of tolerance.
If one wants to declare some place as tolerant, meaning the space will tolerate things as long as it does not possess any threat towards any other group, but once this emerges, one must banish those who don't adhere to the aforementioned concept of tolerance. Otherwise they're more likely to abolishing their own agency and become the decorative plant in the corner of the bar in the metaphor I am next going to be using.

It's similar logic as establishing a bar and only rule is about freedom and tolerance - everyone is accepted and one could do anything they wanted in the bar.
Once 1% MC people come in and take charge in and make it their free-time hanging and dope-pushing place. You don't want to go in because you see firearms and white lines on the table and toilets are out of order because there are narcs passed out..
I mean you all get the picture already... Almost what happened in Christiania in Denmark.

Buddhi and love is not just about sunshine and rainbows because if having wrong perception and application of it, Atma takes a different turn, especially if one's intention was to create a bar with welcoming and accepting atmosphere.
In practice of buddhi one must be also strict. It is possible to approach people as a human being and see the flaws and accept them in them as you are equally flawed, but never one should one accept all the actions that person might do to others.

When it comes to social media, I must say that they are businesses after all and they do PR, meaning , if they see that there might be reputation loss because someone in France is making videos that are a bit there and there about questionable things, they surely will do something in order to manage their reputation - plain simple.
Yes, it sucks that in order to listen some of BM I should verify my age in YT and I can't share Burzum in Facebook but it's mistake to think we were free in the first place and expect Facebook to be the vanguarding white knight of such act.
Not to mention about those bands regarding to their own view's either that are not really for tolerance and acceptance either, but one didn't even believe in it in the first place, just using the political rhetoric to undermine it's position.
Seferoth
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:18 am

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Seferoth »

Kenazis wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 11:44 am
Seferoth wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:04 pm Being tolerant means being tolerant against the intolerant as well...
This is interesting one. Should we?
If not you are no different from the so called intolerant people. Every single human being is tolerant and intolerant towards certain things. Only way to be considered tolerant is by being absolutely tolerant. Everything else is just hypocrisy and pushing agendas which each of us are guilty of. We all have our moral guidelines, and something morally right for some is completely immoral to some...and we all judge others based on this fact. Who here has right to judge what is right tolerance and what is not?
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: Liberal Intolerance

Post by Kenazis »

Seferoth wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:16 pm
Kenazis wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 11:44 am
Seferoth wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:04 pm Being tolerant means being tolerant against the intolerant as well...
This is interesting one. Should we?
If not you are no different from the so called intolerant people. Every single human being is tolerant and intolerant towards certain things. Only way to be considered tolerant is by being absolutely tolerant. Everything else is just hypocrisy and pushing agendas which each of us are guilty of. We all have our moral guidelines, and something morally right for some is completely immoral to some...and we all judge others based on this fact. Who here has right to judge what is right tolerance and what is not?
I must disagree with this. If tolerance is accepting then we most certainly should not be tolerant to everything/accept everything. I myself am moral realist, meaning that the ethical values are objective and existing without human individual. So our moral guidelines can be better or worse (according to their connection to universal values). If I would be hardcore moral subjectivist and in that way also absolute tolerant, I think I would not be a member of SOA, but some "might is right" chaos magician type person (why would I "punish" myself to choose harder way if easier way would be equally good?).
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
Locked