>The whole conversation has to ethics the same rigor as Paschal's wager has to metaphysics.

ding ding ding.

>If you were to simply acknowledge that you are expressing your opinion, I think we'd have less disagreement.

I'm trying to find anything in my previous comments in this thread that constitute mere opinion, and drawing a blank, so I'm afraid I can't do that.

And I'm suspicious whether we have any substantive disagreement, it mostly looks like you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing (especially since my point was straightforwardly tautological).

>At the object level, how do you determine that you have it though? Belief is powerful, but it has limited ability to transform reality itself, it only changes perception of reality.

An interesting and productive question, certainly... but one entirely outside of the scope of my comments or the point I was making in this particular thread (which was pretty straightforward)

The reason why is that liberal progressive ideology is inescapably intolerant is that if promotes: accept everyone, tolerate every belief and religion and sexual orientation and self expression and perception of truth. But ultimately, nearly every belief system has some contradictions with others.

For example: to me someone with a coexist sticker isn’t being intolerant, because they are implying there can be multiple truths, and logic follows no absolute truth. I deem this intolerant to my belief that there is absolute truth.

Sure, but once again, the point is that the case of a belief supported by sufficient evidence but for which conclusive logical proof is impossible is not an interesting or controversial case, since being supported by sufficient evidence means that the belief is epistemically justified )on any evidentialist account of justification at any rate).

What is (purportedly) tricky about, say, the problem of other minds, is that it is in dispute whether we are in possession, or could ever be in possession, of sufficient evidence nevermind conclusive proof.

I think that signal (that your vote is available, but no one has attracted it) only "fires," though, if there's evidence the two major parties care -- i.e., that they work hard to win back your vote. Not really sure that's the case (the Democrats could care less that they don't get the vote of many Marxists in blue states, say), but maybe there's some evidence I'm missing.

Exactly. When the conversation shifts from unjustifiable prejudice against minority demographics to justifiable prejudice against the former group, we lose track of the only important topic (since a cessation of unjustifiable prejudice leads directly to a cessation of that justifiable prejudice).

>Philosophical skeptics may argue that there are no inductive beliefs (knowledge outside deductions or our direct sensations) that can be justified. For example, we don't know that we aren't brains in vats, so we can't say we are justified in believing that we are not.
>
>I argue that this level of skepticism is unwarranted if we have reasonable certainty.

Right but once again, the point of contention isn't so much whether belief is justified provided one has reasonable certainty, its what constitutes reasonable certainty in the first place (especially since "reasonable" or "rational" are often synonymous with "epistemically justified/warranted" in epistemology)- the skeptic agrees that a belief is justified if one is reasonably certain, but claims that inductive or empirical/factual beliefs can never be reasonably certain (since, for instance, we could just be brains in vats or in an ancestor simulation or whatever).

And just as an aside, epistemology seems to have mostly moved on from its obsession with answering the radical skeptic; this was the preoccupation of English-speaking philosophers in the early 20th century- so, Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein, etc- who were responding the idealists and neo-Hegelians who had immediately preceded them. But I think most people consider the radical skeptic to have been well answered, by arguments like Witt's in On Certainty for instance, and so have tended to move on to other problems.

That's not to say there's any harm in rehashing this issue, but it does seem to me that the problem you're attempting to solve has already been adequately dispensed with.

This was covered on this forum just a couple weeks ago. In any event, the Einstein quote addresses it succinctly. The knowledge exists in the world, and science uncovers that knowledge.

And his era is instructive in this. Would it have been wise to not uncover the knowledge of nuclear fission, and to have allowed the Germans to uncover it? Ethical? Even though we ended up deploying the bomb in war, and have been the only ones to do so?

Could be. I wonder how much our individualism plays into it. I always see governance as "they" and "them" too. And that may be where my defense of the non-voter comes from.

Many of us are so disconnected that we don't want to be associated with each other, or consider ourselves parts of their group. So when it comes time to organize, it's very difficult to go in and pick which team you want to pretend like you belong in.

It's hard to get engaged in these broad concepts when I'm most comfortable in my own private world, and I kind of just hope to be stay safe there with the occasional interaction of the small community I connect with.

I've seen it referred to as essentially zombified, actually. This is essentially what David Harvey argues in his A Brief History of Neoliberalism.

The source of the rot is indeed capitalism, and that also happens to be the most dominant aspect of neoliberalism (and its current alternative, neofascism).

There aren't any conservative positions that are supported by the relevant scientific research.

Oh ok, and this is a speech issue?

"Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value, elly judgments of all kinds remain necessary."

― Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta

Why is it that liberals cannot escape intolerance?

I mean, that's the implication of this article, isn't it? That liberals can't escape intolerance; and moreover, that the author is going to tell us why this is the case.

But I don't think he does; and try as I might, I can't seem to figure out the answer.

>Despite these debates, it struck me that I almost never see liberals address the strongest case for the liberal intolerance hypothesis.

By "these debates," we mean "A politician took a position that their constituency disagreed with." Is this the "intolerance" the author is speaking about? If it is, it seems a disingenuous way to frame disagreement over a political issue. Are we going to argue that voters upset about a new tax law are engaging in "intolerant" behavior when they write their representative or attend a protest?

Is "intolerance" a new buzzword for right wing ideologues? I suppose it must be, since "the tolerant Left" has been a snide rejoinder* for some time now.

(*useful for when a right-wing pundit wants to shut down a conversation.)

>In Western countries, certain liberal values have achieved hegemony.

Really?

Which ones?

And how is this hegemony of ideas structured? Who decides where a given value falls within the hegemony?

Personally, I find a major problem with conservative and right-wing thinkers is that they tend to assume hierarchies are both natural and inevitable. This leads them to view the world through that rose-colored lens, where everything must be part of a hierarchy and if one group (or their ideas) gains recognition, it must be at the expense of another.

This simply is not true; but damned if we're going to successfully explain why it's not true to a conservative thinker.

>Traditionally, liberals champion dignity and self-expression, recently emphasizing the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities. As Western societies have become more affluent and secure, majorities have embraced these causes.
>
>Yet this creates a dilemma.

Why?

What is this dilemma? How does it manifest? What form does it take? How can we identify it when it's in front of us?

Or is the dilemma merely the fact that some people hold certain beliefs that the general public has decided (through their "hegemonic" practices, of course) to be unworthy of respect in polite society?

>... in ideological terms, I am not sure that liberalism will overcome this.

Overcome what? I still don't understand the problem this article is supposed to be illustrating.

>Broadly, ideologies and political movements adopt positions which suit groups, political space being predicated on inter-group competition and rewarding efficient groups.

Yes. Good. This is how political spaces are formed. I take issue with the "rewarding efficient groups" part, but mostly because defining "efficient" seems a critical step to understanding that sentence and we haven't done that; but even so, sure, this is a straight-forward factual observation.

>If incentive structures deter liberals from advocating tolerance, liberalism will struggle to counter this trend.

. . . and?

Wait, is this the answer to the question? Are we saying that "liberals cannot escape intolerance because the incentive structures in everyday social interactions discourage them from advocating for more tolerance?"

That's it, isn't it?

This entire article is a veiled rant about how people are being mean to the author on Twitter.

Accounts differ, but it seems that he was removed as a Liberal Democrats (a medium-sized UK liberal party) candidate because he supports tightening regulation on access to abortions.

Thank you for helping me figure out how to best frame what I meant. Because I feel like the article is trying to pretend like not deciding to vote isn't itself a decision. I actually think most people would prefer a different system as far as the voting goes but we don't all agree on what the best shape of the new system would be and much like a third party option none of us feels empowered to make the change because most of us agree that this is better than a lot of other worse options. I think that's part of the plan. I think they want us to feel divided and powerless. I don't know how to fix that.

Hello,

Excuse me for my ignorance, but could you clarify the political situation you’re referencing? Not super familiar with British politics.

The man was “cancelled” for just expressing his opinion or because of his proposed policies?

Thank you 🙏

Perfect response :)

[removed]

Yesterday I was reading on Retrotopy of Zygmunt Bauman: violence inherently implicates the idea of a latent war, and two sides of it (violence for good, and violence for evil). Under those circumstances, I believe that we keep close to the concept of "possession" of the beings and goods, and at a certain point (with the prevalence of the idea of violence), we do keep the idea of reification, as well.

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Popper considered "intolerance of intolerance" as a response to be state-issued suppression and that the preferable alternative was the court of public opinion (and rational argumentation). IMO, it's clear here he's not just talking about strict authoritarianism. Especially given the phrase "any movement preaching intolerance..."

Call me when SJWs are stringing up conservatives to murder them and then we'll talk.

A perfectly tolerant society can tolerate all save the intolerant, and is therefore not perfectly tolerant.

A perfectly intolerant society cannot tolerate even itself, and so disappears up it's own Jeffries Tube.

(playlist. "Not one of Us" Peter Gabriel)

This is a blog post, not an argument.

It really doesn't amount to much more than "I choose to call this behavior 'liberal.' Therefore, any criticism I levy against that behavior can be levied against anything else I call 'liberal.'"

You'll get more upvotes in /r/conservative than you will anywhere else. This just ain't rigorous thinking. It's really not much more than a well-to-do white dude whining and trying to name drop Popper for legitimacy as is, sorry.

edit: if you can answer the following questions, there might be a discussion in there somewhere:

1. What is your definition of "intolerance"? "Tolerance"?

2. What is your definition of "liberalism"?

3. Explain why you feel justified in claiming that "certain liberal values have achieved hegemony," and why you think that's a bad thing.

This was well worded & good perspective for me, thanks!

I agree that it's clear our decisions or non-decisions have an impact on others, even if we resent it. I just disagree that we bear a moral responsibility for those (in)decisions.

Especially with how difficult it is to compare harm, and project the outcome of those decisions.

I'll vote for a Biden over a Trump. But I really resent being given that choice, and honestly feel like I have the right to disengage from a system that forces it on me. I didn't consent to this system. Enough people seem to like it enough that they maintain it, so I'm not sure it would be morally right for me to change it, even if I could. But I'd absolutely like to feel like I have the right to walk away from it if I get tired enough of feeling not represented.

On the desert island, I'd like to think I wouldn't eat the meat, or participate in the voting. That choice isn't for everyone, but feels like it's the right one to me.

>liberal interpretations are now too broad

Do you have examples?