This isn’t an attempt to understand, it seems entirely disingenuous with ignoring everything I said to focus on one single thing and the response to it. I’ve explained that silencing people from sharing honest opinions simply because other people don’t like hearing them is literally inflicting the psychiatric harm on others you’re concerned with.
People disagree with you. People don’t like you. That’s a thing all humans need to learn to deal with. Regardless of who you are or what they dislike about you, there will always be people out there who feel that way. At the same time there are others you dislike based on their lifestyles, or beliefs, or values that don’t match your own.
That’s life. You have the right to live and express your beliefs and opinions, and so does everyone else. Even if they don’t like what you have to say, and even if you don’t like what they have to say.
Killing or forcibly silencing anyone who doesn’t share your own world view isn’t a sane solution to that. Accepting that not all people will like you and choosing to spend your time with those who do is.
I keep harping on about this point because to me, it’s the obvious logical inconsistency in your views, entirely based on real historical examples. Maybe I’m just too dense, but I still don’t understand how you resolve this inconsistency beyond “they just have to deal with it”.
I’ve explained that silencing people from sharing honest opinions simply because other people don’t like hearing them is literally inflicting the psychiatric harm on others you’re concerned with.
Have you seen concrete studies showing that these harms are anywhere near comparable? I can’t remember anything in that direction, and I’d be very surprised if it were true. Having 95% of society band together to exclude you is a completely different kind of harm, compared to not being allowed to exclude 5% of society.
To exclude you from what? Being liked by everyone? Where are you getting this 95% and 5%? It would suck if 95% of humanity decided they didn’t like you, but they have that right. You can’t force people to like you.
Of course making laws like no colored folk at this drinking fountain aren’t good. That’s relegating some people to second class citizens, which comes from preaching that some people are different and inferior. That’s not tolerance, it’s the first stage of intolerance.
But for people simply saying something like they don’t like some certain group of people for whatever their reason is? Those are just assholes. The world is full of them. If you don’t like extremely religious people and speak openly about that then they likely feel the same way about you. There will always be people in the world who don’t like you, and people you don’t like. That’s to be expected.
Again, I feel like I’ve explained my concrete example well enough that I don’t understand why you’re asking “exclude you from what”. Exclude you from the thing I previously mentioned people are excluded from, of course?
Again, I feel like I’ve explained my concrete example well enough that I don’t understand why you’re asking “exclude you from what”. Exclude you from the thing I previously mentioned people are excluded from, of course?
I don’t see a single previous mention of the word exclude even existing in this message chain prior to you typing it in that last message. Its a bit difficult to feel you’re being genuine when you’ve not previously mentioned anything of the sort as far as I can see.
You can either decide your own words are important enough for you to restate them and answer the questions I asked in the last two responses that you made this nonsense dodge on, or you’ll be letting me no neither one of us should feel your words are very important.
I already tried to restate the same example multiple times now, but I can’t see that it has helped your understanding, rather the opposite. IMO it’s very clear that “being excluded” and “being rejected” refer to the same phenomenon, so it feels ironic to read you doubting whether I’m genuine one sentence later.
If you’re genuinely trying to understand my issue with your position, I’d invite you to read through the chain again, and to formulate a clear question that engages with my example instead of asking me to repeat, when you could simply scroll up to see what I’ve previously written.
I’ve restated similar things multiple times to attempt to clarify for you, you find your own words to be so unimportant that you’re not willing to answer basic questions and instead act like this.
This is not at all someone trying to get a better understanding of a thing. This is argumentative and combative. I have no interest in that.
As I just said to someone else:
You seem to be trying to twist this into saying that it’s all right to suppress, even with violence, anyone who says something that you might not like to hear. That’s the polar opposite of tolerance and of everything that Popper was saying.
You don’t get to suppress people just because you think that maybe eventually at some point they might be violent. That would mean killing or suppressing every other human on the planet who doesn’t hold a worldview that matches yours on topics you feel are important. It’s not a sane or rational view to hold.
With you I’ll add that I’m now blocking you. I don’t have the patience to deal with bigots who run this coy trolling game when they find thoughts that don’t match their own hate and can’t handle them.
Likewise, you’ve been acting insufferably - repeating your argument is not an effective way to answer an obvious gap in logic, and then acting like you can’t scroll up five pixels is just wasting everyone’s time.
I sincerely hope you won’t have to live through the kind of world you’re hoping for.
This isn’t an attempt to understand, it seems entirely disingenuous with ignoring everything I said to focus on one single thing and the response to it. I’ve explained that silencing people from sharing honest opinions simply because other people don’t like hearing them is literally inflicting the psychiatric harm on others you’re concerned with.
People disagree with you. People don’t like you. That’s a thing all humans need to learn to deal with. Regardless of who you are or what they dislike about you, there will always be people out there who feel that way. At the same time there are others you dislike based on their lifestyles, or beliefs, or values that don’t match your own.
That’s life. You have the right to live and express your beliefs and opinions, and so does everyone else. Even if they don’t like what you have to say, and even if you don’t like what they have to say.
Killing or forcibly silencing anyone who doesn’t share your own world view isn’t a sane solution to that. Accepting that not all people will like you and choosing to spend your time with those who do is.
I keep harping on about this point because to me, it’s the obvious logical inconsistency in your views, entirely based on real historical examples. Maybe I’m just too dense, but I still don’t understand how you resolve this inconsistency beyond “they just have to deal with it”.
Have you seen concrete studies showing that these harms are anywhere near comparable? I can’t remember anything in that direction, and I’d be very surprised if it were true. Having 95% of society band together to exclude you is a completely different kind of harm, compared to not being allowed to exclude 5% of society.
To exclude you from what? Being liked by everyone? Where are you getting this 95% and 5%? It would suck if 95% of humanity decided they didn’t like you, but they have that right. You can’t force people to like you.
Of course making laws like no colored folk at this drinking fountain aren’t good. That’s relegating some people to second class citizens, which comes from preaching that some people are different and inferior. That’s not tolerance, it’s the first stage of intolerance.
But for people simply saying something like they don’t like some certain group of people for whatever their reason is? Those are just assholes. The world is full of them. If you don’t like extremely religious people and speak openly about that then they likely feel the same way about you. There will always be people in the world who don’t like you, and people you don’t like. That’s to be expected.
Again, I feel like I’ve explained my concrete example well enough that I don’t understand why you’re asking “exclude you from what”. Exclude you from the thing I previously mentioned people are excluded from, of course?
I don’t see a single previous mention of the word exclude even existing in this message chain prior to you typing it in that last message. Its a bit difficult to feel you’re being genuine when you’ve not previously mentioned anything of the sort as far as I can see.
You can either decide your own words are important enough for you to restate them and answer the questions I asked in the last two responses that you made this nonsense dodge on, or you’ll be letting me no neither one of us should feel your words are very important.
I already tried to restate the same example multiple times now, but I can’t see that it has helped your understanding, rather the opposite. IMO it’s very clear that “being excluded” and “being rejected” refer to the same phenomenon, so it feels ironic to read you doubting whether I’m genuine one sentence later.
If you’re genuinely trying to understand my issue with your position, I’d invite you to read through the chain again, and to formulate a clear question that engages with my example instead of asking me to repeat, when you could simply scroll up to see what I’ve previously written.
I’ve restated similar things multiple times to attempt to clarify for you, you find your own words to be so unimportant that you’re not willing to answer basic questions and instead act like this.
This is not at all someone trying to get a better understanding of a thing. This is argumentative and combative. I have no interest in that.
As I just said to someone else:
You seem to be trying to twist this into saying that it’s all right to suppress, even with violence, anyone who says something that you might not like to hear. That’s the polar opposite of tolerance and of everything that Popper was saying.
You don’t get to suppress people just because you think that maybe eventually at some point they might be violent. That would mean killing or suppressing every other human on the planet who doesn’t hold a worldview that matches yours on topics you feel are important. It’s not a sane or rational view to hold.
With you I’ll add that I’m now blocking you. I don’t have the patience to deal with bigots who run this coy trolling game when they find thoughts that don’t match their own hate and can’t handle them.
Likewise, you’ve been acting insufferably - repeating your argument is not an effective way to answer an obvious gap in logic, and then acting like you can’t scroll up five pixels is just wasting everyone’s time.
I sincerely hope you won’t have to live through the kind of world you’re hoping for.