"Liberals think they're tolerant, but they're not."

[Brickjectivity]

I notice Zakaria, along with some of the posters in this thread, seem to conflate simple protests of liberals against speakers with other protests of regressive leftists meant to silence speakers. When graduates walk out on Mike Pence at Notre Dame, their actions do not threaten Pence's right to free speech, as Zakaria and others seem to imply.

True.

I would agree that they're not threatening anyone's right to free speech, but what good does it do to walk away? I don't think different sides have to become friends, but it's counterproductive for them to view each other as intractable enemies either. If we can't talk to each other or open a dialogue between disparate factions, then it can only get worse.

Also true.

 

[Debater Slayer]

OK then.....
Do you think it's ever a good idea?
What do you think is the best default approach to changing the minds of backsliders & reprobates?

I think that sometimes it's definitely a good—possibly even great—idea.

There's no "default" approach, as far as I can see; the approach varies based on who one is talking to, which ideology the person one is talking to embraces, and the context in which one is trying to change someone else's mind. For instance, some people on this forum inspired me to let go of homophobic and religiously bigoted beliefs because they were so open to befriending me. On the other hand, some people remain toxic no matter how much you are friendly to them. There are no constants, as I said.

 

[LuisDantas]

OK then.....
Do you think it's ever a good idea?
What do you think is the best default approach to changing the minds of backsliders & reprobates?

If I may:

It may perhaps be a good idea when there is a lack of other options, for survival related reasons.

But that is quite the slippery slope. People who refuse to accept the consequences of their moral parameters end up losing them altogether. Accomodating for immorality as a regular strategy is essentially the same as corrupting oneself.

As a rule, the best approaches for moral recovery need clear, often-communicated stances and challenges. That will cause ill of ease. And that is how it should be. People should know what they want and accept to pay the prices.

 

[siti]

Hard to believe the change that took place, so quickly. Not hard to recognize that it isn't remotely any kind of improvement.

Well I'm a bit young to remember the "never had it so good" days of the late 50s and early 60s. But I can tell you from my research of my own family history, that at 53 I have already outlived all but the last two generations of my own paternal forefathers who were, for several generations at least, poorly paid stonemasons by trade and died in their 30s and 40s of respiratory disease leaving their families (at least twice according to census records) to the workhouse and the children's home. I suspect that if I could ask them to compare, they would happily nominate the early 21st century as a happier and healthier time to live and work than the mid-19th. And I don't suppose for a second that they would put the improvement down to conservatism.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I may:

It may perhaps be a good idea when there is a lack of other options, for survival related reasons.

But that is quite the slippery slope. People who refuse to accept the consequences of their moral parameters end up losing them altogether. Accomodating for immorality as a regular strategy is essentially the same as corrupting oneself.

As a rule, the best approaches for moral recovery need clear, often-communicated stances and challenges. That will cause ill of ease. And that is how it should be. People should know what they want and accept to pay the prices.

I read that a couple times, & still don't understand it.
Could you dumb it down for me?

 

[LuisDantas]

I read that a couple times, & still don't understand it.
Could you dumb it down for me?

Immorality must be pointed out, clearly, directly and often. It ought to be challenged face front.

That means that it will trouble people. And that is how it must be.

It gets better if it becomes a well-settled habit, though.

The only alternative is to accept passive corruption ourselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Immorality must be pointed out, clearly, directly and often. It ought to be challenged face front.

That means that it will trouble people. And that is how it must be.

It gets better if it becomes a well-settled habit, though.

The only alternative is to accept passive corruption ourselves.

Befriending (or at least being civil to) the enemy would of course
involve potentially uncomfortable challenges to their views.

I'm OK with troubling people.
I bet you've noticed.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm OK with troubling people.
I bet you've noticed.

Under certain parameters, you are. That does not tell me a whole lot, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Under certain parameters, you are. That does not tell me a whole lot, though.

See my edited post.
I elaborated.

 

[crowfeather]

See my edited post.
I elaborated.

Nice of you, and sensitive, to step in and save me from the Aberfan Mining Disaster.
Hopefully I can put it some use, and avoid wasting the opportunity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nice of you, and sensitive, to step in and save me from the Aberfan Mining Disaster.
Hopefully I can put it some use, and avoid wasting the opportunity.

Hey, I live to serve.

 

[LuisDantas]

Befriending (or at least being civil to) the enemy would of course involve potentially uncomfortable challenges to their views.

And while that is often the best strategy, it takes a degree of cooperation for it to work.

In any case, I was talking about something else entirely. Civility is fine. But it is not always understandable by one's interlocutors.

There can be no useful communication if the messages are not understood at their basic meanings. And for that to happen, a common language must be negotiated first.

Civility is a valuable attainment. But it should not be allowed to obfuscate dire realities.

 

[Revoltingest]

And while that is often the best strategy, it takes a degree of cooperation for it to work.

In any case, I was talking about something else entirely. Civility is fine. But it is not always understandable by one's interlocutors.

Is it vocabulary enhancement day?
I'm having trouble follwing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it vocabulary enhancement day?
I'm having trouble follwing.

Let me put it this way: respect is only possible after mutual understanding is established.

Before that, we may have some form of protocol, but it will only be meaningless ritual.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me put it this way: respect is only possible after mutual understanding is established.

Before that, we may have some form of protocol, but it will only be meaningless ritual.

Civil meaningless protocol can lead to detente.
It beats the pants off violent meaningless protocol.

 

[LuisDantas]

Civil meaningless protocol can lead to detente.
It beats the pants off violent meaningless protocol.

Détente is not any better than actual progress.

It is just a nice-looking word for avoidance and postponing. By definition, it solves nothing.

It relies on external events to hopefully keep the situation tolerable or perhaps even ameliorate it somehow.

Most real-life political situations of any significance have the exact opposite tendency, that of becoming more complex and difficult to deal with when left neglected for significant periods of time.

 

[gnomon]

I used to believe in open dialog myself. That was back when conservatives were generally rational people. Things have changed in my sixty years. You cannot reason with an unreasonable person.

Please don't make generalized statements.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I find similar experiences IRL & on internet forums.

What? No post pointing out that it's not only liberals who are intolerant?

 

[Sunstone]

Please don't make generalized statements.

Very well. I'd estimate that between two-thirds and four-fifths of today's conservatives are too irrational to engage in reasonable discussions of the issues. But by all means, blame me the messenger for that news.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fareed Zakaria: Liberals think they're tolerant, but they're not - CNN.com

What do you think? Does he make a good point?

I think that there's a big difference between not wanting to give a particular viewpoint a place of honour in the name of your school and trying to silence the viewpoint altogether.

Defending free speech doesn't mean you have to provide a platform for speech you disagree with.