@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called "ps" who is posting to his own "antiwoke" Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the "antiwoke" Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" "How to end wokeness" #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social π
edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.
Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
"I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author."
β€
not really lol far lefties just want to use the bathroom without getting harassed or murdered
yeah "far left" in the US is just wanting basic human rights, something something overton window.
The far-right brings messages of hate, violence, intolerance, and attempts to pass legislation to justify their views. The far-left has brought us the weekend, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, etcβ¦
who?
such as?
the tu quoque is almost too tempting here
this is a joke, right?
Oh, and I didn't know people like Henry Ford and the 2nd Baron Trent were "far-left". I guess the horseshoe really does exist after all.
Stop beating strawmen, your ideological muscles are only gonna atrophy further.
Alright you caught me in a good mood, so Iβll throw some articles out here to explain my line of thinking. I hope youβll see Iβm not arguing with strawmen.
Article from October of last year describing right wing outrage to drag shows.
Fast forward to recent months and it appears that words have turned to action, in the form of legislation
I believe some else mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance, but I will link it again just in case you missed it.
I hope this clears up my line of thinking. No invisible boogymen here - just some examples of,
In my opinion, things changing for the worst. And if you were not arguing in good faith⦠oh well.
The "Paradox of Tolerance" is garbage. An interesting thought experiment where Popper came to the wrong conclusions. You can't believe in "Freedom of Speech" AND "The Paradox of Tolerance". They're incompatible.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/
I'll take "freedom of speech" over "governmental censorship" any day.
Because nobody thinks about what happens if a fundie takes power and decides that abortion is "intolerable" and arrests people who make pro-choice arguments because they're being offensive. Or if anyone makes fun of religion, that's intolerance and you must go to jail.
TLDR: Fuck "The Paradox of Tolerance". It's dumb.
Yeah I get where you're coming from but this all hinges on the concept of Popper's Open Society taken to its most extreme.
Have you ever considered why this whole "children must be able to see drag shows" notion didn't show up just 20 years ago?
Idk, this kind of devil-on-the-wall "this is trans GENOCIDE" rhetoric when it comes to shit like increasing penalties for indecent exposure and not allowing children to attend drag shows really just says the quiet part out loud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
We can't be tolerant of people who are intolerant towards e.g. LGBT people; it doesn't work out in the end.
The apparent paradox is solved by viewing tolerance as a social contract. Only those who adhere to the contract and are tolerant of others can have a claim to receive that same tolerance. Similarly those who are intolerant should have no expectation to be tolerated since they do not adhere to the social contract which should provide that tolerance.
Nonsense, we most certainly can. In fact, most countries "worked out" without ever needing to be tolerant in the first place.
Popper doesn't even acknowledge that this notion can be universalized, and then you're just back to square one with Carl Schmitt and the Concept of the Political.
Take your LGBT example. For that to work, you must be intolerant of, say, Salafis. Then the Salafi can respond that his in-group (the faithful, true to God, whatever) are being threatened by those who must necessarily be intolerant of him by nature of their own allegiance.
Thus you still end up with a value judgment despite Popper's veneer of neutralization and depoliticization. That's where the real philosophizing begins. How do you justify allegiance to one side of the friend/enemy distinction over the other?
Except you don't have to be intolerant of Salafis. They can be Salafis or not for all I or anyone else cares, what matters is whether they hate people for who they are and spread or communicate that hate.
I'm personally not entirely sure about male to female trans athletes being allowed to compete in female-only leagues and am concerned about the wisdom of allowing sex change procedures for minors that weren't born intersex. I wouldn't marry a trans person and if a close family member suddenly came out as trans I might have long discussions with said family member for a while,
But that's it. I wouldn't even dream of hating someone for being trans or demonizing people who are. Even if I had religious beliefs against that kind of stuff it would at worst make me worry about such a person or make me pray for them.
If I were a moderator of a public space, I'd allow them to talk there without fear so long as they're not actively attacking others, same as any other group.
Likewise, you can believe that trans people are wrong and will go to whatever equivalent of hell your belief system has and I would tolerate you as long as you are civil about it, come from a position of compassion and empathy and don't try to force people to listen to you (like by using multiple accounts to circumvent blocks and/or bans) who have clearly communicated that they don't want to hear you anymore (same goes in the other direction, btw) and don't try to incite others to treat them as anything other than fellow human beings.
If someone from either side can't do that, that person lacks tolerance and in turn can expect the same level of tolerance being directed to them.
Salafism kind of requires you to be intolerant of people for who they are, but let's not pretend these people would lend the same "live and let live" thinking to a Catholic bishop who espoused the views of a Salafi mullah when it comes to homosexuals.
But I get where you're coming from and your position is entirely reasonable. The problem is just that your attitude is not that of this thread and the OP. If you actually look at this 10A guy's posts you'll find nothing that merits the response you see in this thread. I'd say there's a long way to overstepping the threshold of civility on that part, but in this thread people already want heads on spikes, so to speak.
Not to mention the insidious evil of clean drinking water and food that won't poison you.
Mhm..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJsf5QY12rg
How is one guy saying (to extremely paraphrase) "some people have used the label of freedom to exploit vulnerable people" relevant to this? Like, thats a given, that some people will use this as a guise. Now, is there a systematic problem of leftists arguing for the freedom to assault children? No, only in the imagination of projecting right-libertarians.
Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler aren't just "some people", they are three of the most influential thought leaders of the (post-)modern Left. Foucault of course being joined by heavyweights like Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, Sartre, Barthes etc. etc. and so on and so forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
The point of course being that this thread is full of idiots who have never even heard of the likes of Foucault or truly appreciate how badly they jumped the gun here (turns out there was still some "intolerance" left). Your cult of transgression and tolerance is not philosophically sound.
With all due respect poststructuralist academics (many of whom are dead) are not the sociocultural leaders of anyone.
That 1977 petition is heinous, but I don't think that being influenced by poststructuralism some 47 years later means anyone has to agree with those politics.
Survived just fine through Judith Butler though.
When I took a couple of critical theory oriented literary courses at uni these were the names that came up again and again, but there was no mention of their ultimate transgression. This is how the myth of an entirely dangerous right and an entirely harmless left is propagated. Just don't mention the bad parts of the left and create one continuous antagonist group out of everyone from Ted Cruz to Heinrich Himmler. Every rightist is implicated in the actions of their most radical thought leaders, but leftists are afforded the luxury of not associating with characters like Foucault, Lenin or Mao at their own leisure.
And I know that you know this but a "thought leader" doesn't need to be alive, so that's not really an argument. These people are tremendously influential and popular in our time (and Butler and Rubin aren't even dead), as demonstrated by the negative response to the Derrick Jensen lecture clip linked above.
Tangential but it's wild to me that you studied Gayle Rubin repeatedly and the pedophilia angle somehow didn't come up. It's literally right there in her writing. Her work was only referenced in one postgrad course I took and 99% of the class totally hated on her for it.
I have to say I don't think this "rightist"/"leftist" paradigm is really working in this discussion. It's way too simplistic and implies that there are two monolithic worldviews at different ends of a linear compendium. But that's just not the case. Many of the theorists don't even agree with each other, or with their own past selves, etc etc.
And in the grassroots a lot of it doesn't even filter down. Soup kitchen workers who never read any of Butler's word salads, junior investment partners who haven't even read Adam Smith...
Sapere aude. The world is too interesting and complex to narrow down to two "ideologies".
The main crit lit course was undergrad and at a European uni (with an American professor) so it was all pretty superficial, but the prof didn't exactly volunteer the ugly sides of these thinkers (as he most certainly would have done with a Carl Schmitt or a Heidegger). The other course (also undergrad) was even less rigorous, just a quick once-over of the basics of oppression and yada yada, namedropping Marcuse/Foucault/Derrida but never dissecting them.
The point of mentioning this wasn't to say that I'm some kind of particular expert on these thinkers (I am not) but rather that my experience with their presentation is that they are left as likeable as possible (there were years between me hearing of Foucault and realizing he was a nonce, whereas people usually learn that someone like Heidegger was a nazi before they even know how his name is pronounced).
I 100% agree on the uselessness of the left/right-dichotomy as it stands, particularly because the radical right gets lumped in with liberal individualists like Adam Smith/Ayn Rand/Ronald Reagan etc., which makes no sense at all.
Still, there are some essential axioms that can be used to distinguish the left and the right, those being equality+liberalism vs. disparity+illiberalism. There is a natural reason that the pedophiles aren't garnering support among the ranks of the far right and that white nationalists won't find much love among the far left.
Your experience sounds unfortunate. It was pretty darn weird of them to gloss over Foucault and not Heidegger! Irresponsible, even.
I'm not American, and find some of their conflations between politics, social policy, and economic policy a little hard to get behind. It's far from universal.
Yeah, irresponsible is the best word for it.
It's very tiresome to observe at length.