Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:13 pm Come on, that's weaselness.

It's like saying that you can talk about homosexuality but if you practice it, then you can be beaten up or jailed.

Nobody would consider that to be a reasonable definition of tolerance and acceptance.

K: ummmm, speaking of weasleness... if you are going to "quote" me,
at least quote me correctly....

I very specifically didn't write about homosexuality... I wrote
about pedophilia.. and that difference makes all the difference
in the world...homosexuality is legal in America...that is a fundamental
difference here... I was talking about the legal standard and the
reaction to certain free speech.. is pedophilia legal in America?
nope...although the GOP/MAGA crowd is trying to lower the
legal age for marriage to 14 in some states... it isn't the liberals
suggesting this, this is the GOP/MAGA crowd...anyway, back at
the ranch...although it is legal to speak about pedophilia
in America, it isn't legal to act upon.....

the second part is that as a father, if someone says to me,
I want to have sex with your 5 year old daughter, I would
beat them to a pulp...I don't have to like your free speech,
I can react to your free speech by attacking you...
but I am not about to restrict your right to free speech...
again, there are limits here... fire in a theater and the like...

there is the free speech and there is the actions
and then there is the visceral response to your free
speech.. In some countries like Germany, it is illegal to
deny the holocaust... and if you deny the holocaust,
there is a legal possible jail time coming to you....
but not in America... you can say, there was no
such thing as a holocaust and legally, from the law,
there is no recourse.. but there is always a non-legal recourse
and by beating you up for your ignorant statement, I face
possible jail time... that is one possible consequence of
my actions.... you can say it, but I can go to jail for acting
with violence to your comments.. but I have that recourse
available to me...

but as I said earlier, it is nuanced.

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:03 pm K: my answer will be a "Nuanced" one and thus will confuse many here..
but I don't see how that is my problem...

let us begin with my attacks on conservatism...
I do believe that conservatives and conservatism is
an "existential threat" to America....and I have laid
out many diverse and different reasons for doing so,
but at no point, have I ever, ever called for conservatives
to be banned, jailed, forbidden from talking, exiled,
or killed... I have spoken out against them for decades...
but using words.. I have not, ever, called for action to
be taken against them...

OK so what you mean by acceptance and tolerance can include insulting them, calling them all fascists, which you do below, mind reading and psychoanlyzing them, generalizing about them and never trying to find common ground.

What you don't do is call for to to be banned or jailed or exiled.

You emphasize that you only use words.

Understood.

I think most people have a different idea of what acceptance and tolerance would indicate. But now we know what you mean. And to be clear I am not saying one must go beyond what you consider acceptance and tolerance. I just think, now, that these words don't really fit what you mean.

I think they way you relate to conservatives does not show acceptance and tolerance. Yes, on a physical level and as far as trying to interfere with their lives and livelihoods and citizenship you accept that they are here and tolerate their existence. But as far as their ideas I see little that would indicate the slightest acceptance or tolerance.

And you might want to consider that repeatedly generalizing about them, calling them names, psychoanlyzing them, oversimplifying their opinions and never actually trying to see if there is common ground is demonizing them.

Not everyone who contributed, for example, to the Holocaust, actually called for the death of Jews. But they did contribute to public discourse that dehumanized, mind read, psychoanalzed and generalized about Jews.

Do I think this is anywhere near the level of Holocaust propaganda. Certainly not the kind carried out by key Nazis. But the kind of everyday anti-semitism, sure. And is most likely to continue divisions and postentially contribute to the violence of others.

And given that there are better ways to criticize ideas, it's an unnecessary and often poorly thought out part of your critique.

You mention forbidden from talking. Presumably this would mean you would be against attempts by the Left (or Right) to ban speakers?

they are certainly allowed to express their right wing fascist
idea's, and I am allowed to express my viewpoints against them...
but I haven't called for their removal in any way, shape or form...
they can keep their idiotic ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't
object to them...they are free to hold them and I will fight to
the death their right to hold their idiotic ideas.. but it doesn't
mean I have to like them or even support them... but I do allow
them the right to have their opinions just as I have my opinions..
I have expressly tolerated their ideas.. I haven't called for the
ban on or the removal of those idea's... they are free to hold them...

I agree, I can't remember an instance where you did the things you think are examples of not accepting or toleratiing them.

now let us engage in another point you brought up...
pedophilia....

are people free to engage in the act of pedophilia?
no, as I have express before, we have limited freedoms.
we have limitations based on legal, psychological, bodily
and scientific limitations...

I cannot shout fire in a crowded theater and that is a good rule...
and I cannot be free to set fire to a crowded theater...
we have both verbal and physical limitations set to us...

I cannot, legally threaten someone with death or dismemberment,
just as I cannot threaten a member of a jury in an attempt to
influence a verdict...I may not touch them, but I cannot
legally threaten them...legally, in California anyway, the
legal term is coercion... I cannot threaten someone with
harm or to physical restrain them..

we have legal limitations on what we can or cannot say..

but clearly we can talk about being a pedophilia...
being sexual attracted to children... but we cannot act upon it...
but this is also true... that to say, I am sexually attracted to children,
will get a response.. and if you are father like I am, you will
most likely get the crap kicked out of you....I don't have to like
one who is sexually attracted to children... I can allow them the
right to say so, but in return, they must expect to be at a minimum,
verbally attacked... once again, the right to speak freely, doesn't
mean I have no reaction to it...
but legally, I am unable to ban or censor this speech of being,
sexually attracted to children...

So, you would say that you tolerate and accept when pedophiles argue that children should be legal sexual partners for adults.

you have the legal rights and then you have the reality of freedom
of speech.. having that right to speak about one's sexuality toward
children will garner a response and most likely that response will not
be pleasant...that is the reality of the situation.... the nuanced
response to one who engages in the speech of pedophilia...
you have the legal right to, but also the distinct possibility of getting the
crap kicked out of you...

I don't have to like or dislike any type of speech.. I just have to
accept that it does happen.. but I also point to the fact that
certain "free" speech will get a response that is not always pleasant...

OK, acceptance seems here to mean that one recognizes that free speech may lead to hearing things and reading things one does not like. It's not accepting and tolerating the ideas, it's a more stoic acceptance of the consquences of free speech?

There's not only physiology, biochemistry and anatomy in first year medicine, there's also embroylogy, microanatomy, and surface anatomy.

K: ummmm, speaking of weasleness... if you are going to "quote" me,
at least quote me correctly....

I didn't quote you at all. I just posted a comment after your post.

I very specifically didn't write about homosexuality... I wrote
about pedophilia.. and that difference makes all the difference
in the world...

I switched to homosexuality intentionally because it's too easy rationalize your reaction to pedophilia and not to see it as intolerance.
The topic of homosexuality is less likely to produce a visceral response, while at the same time producing various strong responses.

homosexuality is legal in America...that is a fundamental
difference here... I was talking about the legal standard and the
reaction to certain free speech.. is pedophilia legal in America?
nope...although the GOP/MAGA crowd is trying to lower the
legal age for marriage to 14 in some states... it isn't the liberals
suggesting this, this is the GOP/MAGA crowd...anyway, back at
the ranch...although it is legal to speak about pedophilia
in America, it isn't legal to act upon.....

We're talking about the tolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs. Legality is irrelevant to whether all values and beliefs can/should be tolerated and accepted. People often have values and beliefs which conflict with the established laws of a community/society/country.

the second part is that as a father, if someone says to me,
I want to have sex with your 5 year old daughter, I would
beat them to a pulp...I don't have to like your free speech,
I can react to your free speech by attacking you...
but I am not about to restrict your right to free speech...
again, there are limits here... fire in a theater and the like...

there is the free speech and there is the actions
and then there is the visceral response to your free
speech.. In some countries like Germany, it is illegal to
deny the holocaust... and if you deny the holocaust,
there is a legal possible jail time coming to you....
but not in America... you can say, there was no
such thing as a holocaust and legally, from the law,
there is no recourse.. but there is always a non-legal recourse
and by beating you up for your ignorant statement, I face
possible jail time... that is one possible consequence of
my actions.... you can say it, but I can go to jail for acting
with violence to your comments.. but I have that recourse
available to me...

You're talking about freedom of speech. And you seem to think that this is equivalent to tolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs.

I don't agree.

Tolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs requires that people are allowed to act out their values and beliefs. That's why I gave the example of homosexuality. If homosexuals are only allowed to talk about homosexuality, but not to engage in it, then something is not quite right. Is it, in fact , only tolerance and acceptance of freedom of speech but not tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality itself? Think about that.

And you're not even tolerant of the freedom of speech of pedophiles because you're okay with attacking them.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:01 pm You're talking about freedom of speech. And you seem to think that this is equivalent to tolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs.

Yes, he's either very confused about what those words mean or he's using them so idiosyncratically he should have given us a heads up.

I don't agree.

Tolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs requires that people are allowed to act out their values and beliefs.

He's actually conflating accepting that people hold certain beliefs with accepting their beliefs. It would be absurd to say, for example, he tolerates and accepts conservative's beliefs.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:01 pmTolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs requires that people are allowed to act out their values and beliefs. That's why I gave the example of homosexuality. If homosexuals are only allowed to talk about homosexuality, but not to engage in it, then something is not quite right. Is it, in fact, only tolerance and acceptance of freedom of speech but not tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality itself? Think about that.

It is interesting what you say here. If the liberal ideal was for a civil structure that was a sort of umbrella under which people with differing views could live together -- for example Catholics and Protestants -- it was possible to propose toleration because, in fact, Catholicism and Protestantism share a common root. A value-perspective unites them at a fundamental level.

But what happens in a society, or indeed in a civilization, where the foundational agreements no longer sustain a common value-perspective?

The problem that arises today, and is increasing and not diminishing, is expressed by how PK frames his view of his own value-set which he defines as opposed to that of his political, social or philosophical enemies. I would not necessarily say that PK is 'wrong' to situate himself where he does situate himself. I have read enough of the recent books of liberals and hyper-liberals (and progressive radicals) to understand that they do make efforts to locate their cherished views, and all they advocate for, in the higher moral terms. What they do, and how they see and how they define things, is according to them eo ipso right, proper, and good. There is no argument about it and there is no conversation possible.

And when one recognizes that these people are not lying to themselves and they really do believe their choices are best, one can then understand the Gramscian admonition to 'march through the institutions'. To become embedded in those civil structures where the entire direction of culture can be influenced. This is why, in some other thread, I made mention of the social engineering that took place, consciously, deliberately, after defining a plan, to alter the way the entire nation thought about homosexuality. [C.f. the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's]

The point is not so much to take an opposing stand against homosexuality, but rather to be able to see and talk about processes of social engineering.

Curiously, but strangely and discomfortingly, I think that we must recognize the intense degree that radical notions and radical activism operate with extreme power in our present. It seems that it has to be pointed out to enable one (people) to see it clearly. Without it being pointed out, without it being given clear labels, and without what it is doing in the present being analyzed as an ideological progression, it is sort of like 'fish in water' for us: we cannot recognize the degree to which manipulation has occurred.

I say this because, among those who are opposed, also morally, to the general directions of things, that they too define their ethical and moral bases. They are grounded as well in value-sets. Their values can be explained and clarified. They are not irrational. And I present as evidence, or as an example, the analysis of James Lindsay.

I have to admit that though I certainly was raised up in Left-Progressive environments and absorbed all its tenets, that at a certain point, and for certain reasons, my viewpoint changed. I do not discount Left-Progressive concerns though. They are sound when they are grounded on proper foundations. It is when they move into the *hyper* territories that they become, in my view, extremely problematic.

Lindsay, and he is just one example, exposes why these trends are dangerous and problematic.

The question then becomes (for me and in my own processes) is How can one tolerate people who are informed by ideas of this particular radical nature? The question is actually an answer and a statement: you cannot. And this points back, again, to the inevitability of social and political strife and, as I say, "politics by other means". At a certain point, within the liberal arrangement, it becomes impossible to hold that *umbrella* up. The liberal agreements come apart at the seams. The glue comes undone. It no longer binds.

However, I remain aware that on the other side of the political and value-scale that those others cannot see things in this light. They dismiss the entire premise as 'lying' and, inevitably, as 'fascist' or 'Nazi' discourse.

instead of a point-by-point discussion of my "critics"
I shall reset the conversation...

my response to the general question, are you accepting of
such "beliefs" as homosexuality or pedophilia...
now my response was nuanced...but I did something different
than the questioners did, I brought it down to the real world...

in the real world, there are levels of responses...which is
something my "fanboys" seem to miss...we aren't talking about
some theoretical response... we are talking about reality....
and in reality, if you diss my baseball team, I am not reacting
the same way I would if you said, I want to have sex with your daughter...

there are levels of response.. and in the real world, there are
consequences to our words...one time at work, a guy told
a young girl, with her mother mind you, that she had
a body that should be in a strip club...again, given the different
levels of response, I had several choices to make.. the mother
was livid and call the cops...I went over and tossed him from
the store.. but Kropotkin doesn't he have the freedom of speech
to say whatever he wants, which isn't dealing with the reality
of the situation...the situation dictates the choices we make...
he said his words in a private business...a grocery store...
which becomes a different situation than if he says it out
on the street... I am dealing with the reality of his words,
not in theoretical land...where my "legions of fans" want
this conversation to go...or to say it another way,
context matters.... when we say our words, to whom
we say our words, how we say our words, matter...

I have heard blacks call each other, n*****... now
if I were to call a black man, n*****, which I absolutely
have the legal right to do, but as I have pointed out
context matters...and given the context, I most likely
will get some response to my words... not a happy response for
me, but a response.. that is the real world kids...
where words have consequences... and in the real world,
I don't have to like what certain people say, do they have
the legal right to say so, yes, and some words, will
get us put in jail... threating someone with murder is
a punishable offense... and I agree with that...

but once again, there are limits.... someone might
say to me, fuck you Kropotkin... and so what?
I don't need to respond to that... I have no reaction to
that.... context is everything... in what context are what
words being said and to whom? upon reflection, I am analyzing
this on a different level than ''my friends'' are.... and that is
the difference in our responses... I am making a nuance response..

Kropotkin

Are these examples of your tolerance and acceptance of pedophiles?

Are they examples of liberal tolerance and acceptance of pedophiles?

Are they examples of intolerance and rejection?

Can you sum up tolerance and acceptance without reference to freedom of speech or US legal code?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:12 pm instead of a point-by-point discussion of my "critics"
I shall reset the conversation...

in the real world, there are levels of responses...which is
something my "fanboys" seem to miss

where my "legions of fans" want
this conversation to go..

I am analyzing
this on a different level than ''my friends'' are.... and that is
the difference in our responses... I am making a nuance response..

Just thought I'd first highlight all the self-congratulation and implicit insults.
So, rhetorical flourish numbers 5 and 9, since there is mindreading here. And 12 for self-congratulation.
viewtopic.php?p=637925#p637925

and also, if you read his whole response, not what I quoted, you'll find no mention of tolerance and acceptance in his response - he does mention accepting as what we are questioning around. IOW he changes the topic, moving it towards freedom of speech and actions. So, while yes, he does give concrete examples, which I think is great, despite his mindreading that I will be against this and want an abstract answer, it'd be great if he directly connected them to the issue we raised. So, his post is a concrete example of

24) Post such that it is unclear what you are responding to and even how you are responding to it.

There's also a dash of...

15) Don't respond to points made; restate in a new paraphrase what you already asserted. This should be everyone's baseline rhetorical strategy. Again, this is the core of PN style.

viewtopic.php?p=637925#p637925

Now here's a concrete situation. There's a guy on a philosophy forum who regularly psychoanalyzes conservatives. He says they come from fear. He psychoanalyzes his own political group differently and positively. Apart from being mindreading, it is also generalizing, and oversimplifying motivations. He often conflates conservatives with the religious right. He interprets their motives negatively. He does not recognize that sometimes conserving can be good. He presents the political situation as having two groups/two political positions, one bad, one good. IOW this is a false dichotomy.

IOW his posts are regularly condescending, ad hom - though aimed generally at everyone in the group - insulting, and
FAIL TO RECOGNIZE ANY NUANCE.

So, it would be highly, highly ironic if he were to present himself as the nuanced communicator.

One day I notice that this person has posted that it would be good if we

we can practice tolerance
and acceptance of all values and beliefs...

I and others like Phyllo find this odd, because of the way he posts in relation to conservatives and for the reasons I mentioned above. There are more things he does that do not seem to reflect accepting and tolerating all values and beliefs.

We point this out and this person talks about not hitting people or allowing them freedom of speech.

Well, that's not enough, I think, to fit the description practicing tolerance and acceptance of all values and beliefs.

So, we begin to probe what we see as a contrast between this goal, this good behavior and attitude he is suggesting and his own behavior and attitude here.

We do not contact moderators to have him banned. We would not assault him if we bumped into him, miraculously, and somehow realized who he was. We do not suggest he should be censored or punished.

What we do do is try to get clarification.

Notice that he tends to respond sort of generally to people who have similar positions but make different points. IOW he does not respond to specific points which I think is facile. And I tell him this. It would be much easier to point out that he isn't really responding to people if he quoted a point and responded to that point.

Here he manages to, yes, be concrete, but in now way make it clear exactly how this responds to the points we made and does this without mentioning acceptance and tolerance.

One reaction I have when reading this is to wonder if perhaps he lacks the skills to actually respond to points made. IOW perhaps he does not know how to actually use specific deduction or to give RELEVANT concrete examples or explain how really he is tolerant and accepting of conservatives. It is very hard to know, since we may be dealing with a very high level rhetorician. See here for a fuller explanation...
viewtopic.php?p=637925#p637925

My example is incredibly concrete. Wny? because one can actually track the concrete unfolding of this dialogue in this thread. One could also use the search functions in Philosophy Now, search for 'conservative' in Peter Kropotkin's posts, and see if you would consider him to practice tolerance and acceptance in relation to them and their ideas.
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=22684

Notice how he also has a history of not really responding. For example when it is pointed out that that in fact there is a significant portion of conservatives who are concerned about police abuse of power - he presented it as only liberals have this - he does not respond.

Which is fine. Peter has been making more of an effort to respond, in his way, to posts in his threads. He doesn't have to do this. It always seemed like his style is more bloglike. Lectures. But that certainly falls into the possible uses of a discussion forum, even if it is a forum.

In fact, I think it would be better than these not really responses posing as responses. But I am not on his level of expertise in rhetoric.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:01 pm

K: ummmm, speaking of weasleness... if you are going to "quote" me,
at least quote me correctly....

I didn't quote you at all. I just posted a comment after your post.

I very specifically didn't write about homosexuality... I wrote
about pedophilia.. and that difference makes all the difference
in the world...

I switched to homosexuality intentionally because it's too easy rationalize your reaction to pedophilia and not to see it as intolerance.
The topic of homosexuality is less likely to produce a visceral response, while at the same time producing various strong responses.

homosexuality is legal in America...that is a fundamental
difference here... I was talking about the legal standard and the
reaction to certain free speech.. is pedophilia legal in America?
nope...although the GOP/MAGA crowd is trying to lower the
legal age for marriage to 14 in some states... it isn't the liberals
suggesting this, this is the GOP/MAGA crowd...anyway, back at
the ranch...although it is legal to speak about pedophilia
in America, it isn't legal to act upon.....

We're talking about the tolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs. Legality is irrelevant to whether all values and beliefs can/should be tolerated and accepted. People often have values and beliefs which conflict with the established laws of a community/society/country.

the second part is that as a father, if someone says to me,
I want to have sex with your 5 year old daughter, I would
beat them to a pulp...I don't have to like your free speech,
I can react to your free speech by attacking you...
but I am not about to restrict your right to free speech...
again, there are limits here... fire in a theater and the like...

there is the free speech and there is the actions
and then there is the visceral response to your free
speech.. In some countries like Germany, it is illegal to
deny the holocaust... and if you deny the holocaust,
there is a legal possible jail time coming to you....
but not in America... you can say, there was no
such thing as a holocaust and legally, from the law,
there is no recourse.. but there is always a non-legal recourse
and by beating you up for your ignorant statement, I face
possible jail time... that is one possible consequence of
my actions.... you can say it, but I can go to jail for acting
with violence to your comments.. but I have that recourse
available to me...

You're talking about freedom of speech. And you seem to think that this is equivalent to tolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs.

I don't agree.

Tolerance and acceptance of values and beliefs requires that people are allowed to act out their values and beliefs. That's why I gave the example of homosexuality. If homosexuals are only allowed to talk about homosexuality, but not to engage in it, then something is not quite right. Is it, in fact , only tolerance and acceptance of freedom of speech but not tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality itself? Think about that.

And you're not even tolerant of the freedom of speech of pedophiles because you're okay with attacking them.

Peter failed to respond to core points in this post. Nor did he concede he mischaracterized what you had said.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:11 pm Are these examples of your tolerance and acceptance of pedophiles?

Are they examples of liberal tolerance and acceptance of pedophiles?

Are they examples of intolerance and rejection?

Can you sum up tolerance and acceptance without reference to freedom of speech or US legal code?

Nor did he respond to your attempt to bring him back to tolerance and acceptance which he managed to not refer to while claiming to be concrete and nuanced in relation to them.

That's what happens in forums (and IRL).

Maybe he will be back and maybe he won't.

There's a good reason for why the butterfly's wings are shaped the way they are.

I know that, everybody knows that!

Then, why did you ask the question?

What?! Which question?!

The question, who asked the question?

It wasn't me.

Somebody asked the question.

Good question.

Which question?

The question you're trying ta answer!

There was another question?

Yes, there was.

Sorry, I must've missed it. What was the question?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:52 am That's what happens in forums (and IRL).

Maybe he will be back and maybe he won't.

K: as I am working an 8 days in a row, you won't hear from
me until next week sometime...I avoid posting on days I am
working....

Kropotkin

We're finally getting to a point where we get to be ourselves again. Is it time to open that champagne bottle that's been sitting in yer cabinet for the last 15 years, is it?