Woke is Marxism Evolved to Take on the West

[gaara4158]

I think it's a cop-out when those on the left try to make that principle/contradict distinction. I think it's a management strategy for cognitive dissonance. But maybe this deserves its own thread?

The first thing to ask is: Is the tolerant person no more tolerant of contract-breaking than the intolerant person is? It seems like saying, "I will be tolerant of everything. Except contract-breaking. That is magically different from all other things."

A second thing to ask would be: How is breach of contract objectively gauged? Is the 'contract' idea anything more than a thin justification for intolerance?

Third, principles or moral constructs are not unconditional. Infraction has always brought punishment, and punishment in kind. Property is demanded of a thief, life is demanded from a mass murderer, etc. So if the leftist was really laboring under the assumption that unconditional tolerance is desirable or virtuous, then perhaps the principle/contract distinction could help them. But in that case all the distinction is doing is addressing an irrational assumption, for principles are not generally unconditional or limitless.

Fourth, the merit of tolerance is not compatible with contractual categories. A key claim of the left is that they are tolerant even of the intolerant (at least up to a point - they are more graciously tolerant of intolerance than others are). The idea behind this seems to be that tolerance ought to be a societal value which is not stingy and which is not limited to certain spheres. Of course this doesn't mean that there is no limit, but it does tend to mean that a contractual limit is inapplicable. Such would be like trying to enforce generosity by contract.

(So I think that the principle/contract distinction is a rather superficial distinction that gets nowhere near the heart of the issue, and is probably more a way to assuage a troubled conscience than an attempt to get to the heart of the issue. Or, at best, it is the way that the left invites retributive justice back in through the backdoor after making a scene, tossing it out the front. Surely vindictive, tit-for-tat contract enforcement goes against the left's notion of tolerance.)

Interesting. It seems to me your core criticism of those on the left who square their intolerance of bigotry with their broader ethic of understanding and acceptance by arguing that understanding and acceptance, as practices, are threatened by the existence of bigotry — as if that’s not an obvious given — is the way they frame it to you when they explain why it’s not a problem. Or maybe it’s just your problem with the two-liner I provided. Let me expound.

When the left frames tolerance as a virtue, it’s in contrast with those on the right who would tear down Pride displays in retail stores every June, boycott beer companies that sponsor lgbt content creators, or harass patients outside of Planned Parenthood facilities. What would an equal display of intolerance look like from the victims of these acts? Does mere condemnation of these acts and discussion of how they cause undue harm constitute equal intolerance? I don’t think so. We don’t see gays vandalizing retail store displays depicting heterosexual couples. We don’t see them boycotting major beer companies that sponsor cis content creators. We don’t see planned parenthood workers harassing churchgoers in the parking lot.

This earns the left a reputation of being relatively tolerant. But the left has never purported to be absolutely tolerant nor magically immune to paradoxes. It’s simply not a problem for us to accept other cultures, creeds, and colors while simultaneously rejecting those who would threaten our ability to do so. It’s not so much a contradiction as it is a necessary exception. If the nature of a contract doesn’t make this clearer for you, that’s fine. Not everyone communicates with the mathematical precision of philosophy graduates. We’ll keep digging for common ground.

The right — and to an extent, the center — takes this tolerant reputation at face value and is then confused when they see the left fighting against anything at all. “So much for the tolerant left,” is how it often goes. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of tolerance and its relationship with either side of the political spectrum, and it amounts to a rather shallow criticism at best, missing the mark entirely at worst.

 

[Aldebaran]

Agreed. Homophobes demanding tolerance from the gays are the only ones I ever hear talking about tolerance.

Then you've never listened to the DEI crowd.

 

[Bradskii]

Is that what "tolerance" means? "A two-way contract"? "If you are nice to me then I will be nice to you"?

Effectively yes. How do you actually think society works? If you were obnoxious to me or mine then my attitude to you would be completely different to you if you were friendly and accomodating. But more clearly: If you fullfill your part of the contract and show tolerance for X then I will fullfill my part and show tolerance towards you in regard to your position. We accept that we have different opinions about X, but we move on and agree to disagree.

If that contract is broken then all bets are off. Whether I respond with mild frustration or I load for bear will depend on what you say and how you say it.

 

[zippy2006]

Interesting. It seems to me your core criticism of those on the left who square their intolerance of bigotry with their broader ethic of understanding and acceptance by arguing that understanding and acceptance, as practices, are threatened by the existence of bigotry — as if that’s not an obvious given — is the way they frame it to you when they explain why it’s not a problem. Or maybe it’s just your problem with the two-liner I provided. Let me expound.

When the left frames tolerance as a virtue, it’s in contrast with those on the right who would tear down Pride displays in retail stores every June, boycott beer companies that sponsor lgbt content creators, or harass patients outside of Planned Parenthood facilities. What would an equal display of intolerance look like from the victims of these acts? Does mere condemnation of these acts and discussion of how they cause undue harm constitute equal intolerance? I don’t think so. We don’t see gays vandalizing retail store displays depicting heterosexual couples. We don’t see them boycotting major beer companies that sponsor cis content creators. We don’t see planned parenthood workers harassing churchgoers in the parking lot.

This earns the left a reputation of being relatively tolerant. But the left has never purported to be absolutely tolerant nor magically immune to paradoxes. It’s simply not a problem for us to accept other cultures, creeds, and colors while simultaneously rejecting those who would threaten our ability to do so. It’s not so much a contradiction as it is a necessary exception. If the nature of a contract doesn’t make this clearer for you, that’s fine. Not everyone communicates with the mathematical precision of philosophy graduates. We’ll keep digging for common ground.

The right — and to an extent, the center — takes this tolerant reputation at face value and is then confused when they see the left fighting against anything at all. “So much for the tolerant left,” is how it often goes. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of tolerance and its relationship with either side of the political spectrum, and it amounts to a rather shallow criticism at best, missing the mark entirely at worst.

But the confusion really does stem from the falsities of the left. Even in your own post you conflate three different terms: understanding, acceptance, and tolerance.

The right simply takes the left at its word. The foundation of my criticism is the way that the left absolutizes tolerance in speech and practice. That is their core error in this matter, and it is what leads to the strange rationalizations with regards to contracts and the like. The contractual shift allows them to relativize tolerance and instead focus on contractual integrity. This itself is incoherent, for a central premise of the left is that they are the unique possessors and guardians of tolerance. But if it is merely contractual, then they cannot possess it more than anyone else. Contracting for tolerance undermines tolerance as a value, and hence as uniquely possessed.

Yet this contractual approach allows them to maintain the illusion that tolerance is a virtue, and stands alone, unsubordinated. In reality it hardly exists at all and is constantly subordinated to other values, but it is harder to see this when the obfuscation of redefining tolerance as a contract occurs, and when the value to which tolerance is subordinated is never mentioned. More on this below, with respect to your emphasis on understanding and acceptance...

When the left frames tolerance as a virtue, it’s in contrast with...

This is instructive. The left "frames tolerance as a virtue," even though it is not. To speak clearly, the left lies about tolerance in order to try to emphasize it to achieve a particular effect.

Interesting. It seems to me your core criticism of those on the left who square their intolerance of bigotry with their broader ethic of understanding and acceptance by arguing that understanding and acceptance, as practices, are threatened by the existence of bigotry...

What you do here is coherent and reasonable in a way that the contractual approach is not. You subordinate tolerance to two entirely different values: understanding and acceptance. It's like saying, "Our real aim is understanding and acceptance, which trump tolerance. When understanding and acceptance are threatened, intolerance is justified." This is coherent, but it is also unheard of from the left. Even in your own post it's not clear that you recognize what you are doing in subordinating tolerance. But the reason it is unheard of is because it is mundane, and it nullifies their claim to be unique. Everyone sacrifices tolerance when it comes to deeper values, and this is because tolerance is not a particularly deep value. It is not a virtue. The left sacrifices tolerance like everyone else, but they pretend otherwise.

We are annoyed with the left's call to "tolerance" because it is a smokescreen. It is a farcical neutrality. The left is no more tolerant than the right. They just profess tolerance more and are therefore more hypocritical. The left wants X and when they can't get it they pretend to appeal to tolerance in order to half-get X. What is X? It is "understanding," "acceptance," but more concretely, it is civil prerogatives for certain groups and identities. If the left wants same-sex marriage, but can't get it, they will pretend to appeal to "tolerance" to move the needle, even though they are no more tolerant of the opposition's position than the opposition is tolerant of theirs. So-called "tolerance" is just a convenient tool to be used when "acceptance" is unavailable.

(Your other point, which I will largely leave aside for now, is that the left is objectively more tolerant because, for example, they don't boycott major beer companies. First I would note that it difficult to objectively assess tolerance, and I think your general claim would require much more argumentation. (Indeed, I think your conclusion that the left is more tolerant is simply false.) Second, the left boycotts and cancels like crazy. If they haven't yet boycotted a major beer company, it is probably because the companies are scared stiff of displeasing the left due to their authoritarian reputation for cancelation.)

 

[zippy2006]

Effectively yes. How do you actually think society works? If you were obnoxious to me or mine then my attitude to you would be completely different to you if you were friendly and accomodating. But more clearly: If you fullfill your part of the contract and show tolerance for X then I will fullfill my part and show tolerance towards you in regard to your position. We accept that we have different opinions about X, but we move on and agree to disagree.

If that contract is broken then all bets are off. Whether I respond with mild frustration or I load for bear will depend on what you say and how you say it.

If you were telling the truth then the left would preach about fulfilling contracts, not about being tolerant. Obviously that's not the case.

Second, it is most absurd to use the breach of an imaginary "tolerance contract" as a litmus test for justifying aggression and intolerance. It's like when a young brother and sister are fighting, and the parent knows that it is a futile and pointless question to ask, "Who started it?" The left's approach with the "tolerance contract" amounts to the claim of the child, "They started it! They started it!"

 

[Bradskii]

If you were telling the truth then the left would preach about fulfilling contracts, not about being tolerant. Obviously that's not the case.

It's the same thing. Didn't I just spend a post explaining that? If you promise to be tolerant and you are not, then you are breaking a promise. You are breaking a contract between us.

Second, it is most absurd to use the breach of an imaginary "tolerance contract" as a litmus test for justifying aggression and intolerance.

It's not a test. And it's not imaginary. It's a contract. Implied if not literally stated. If you say (or imply) you will be tolerant of my friends' gay marriage and not disparage it then I'll be frustrated that you even have to be tolerant, but you have your beliefs and if you abide by your promise then I'll keep my part of the bargain and you won't get any negative comments from me in regard to your beliefs.

If you don't keep your end of the bargain up then neither will I. I won't tolerate any negative comments in regard to my friends. And, as I say, the level of my response will entirely depend on what you say and how you say it

It's like when a young brother and sister are fighting, and the parent knows that it is a futile and pointless question to ask, "Who started it?" The left's approach with the "tolerance contract" amounts to the claim of the child, "They started it! They started it!"

The contract is not between the two children. It's between the parent and the children. 'Don't fight..and you'll not get a hard time from me'. If the children, or you, break the contract then expect to suffer the consequences.

 

[zippy2006]

The left's approach with the "tolerance contract" amounts to the claim of the child, "They started it! They started it!"

The contract is not between the two children. It's between the parent and the children. 'Don't fight..and you'll not get a hard time from me'. If the children, or you, break the contract then expect to suffer the consequences.

The left's "tolerance contract" is merely a way to justify their own intolerance. The fight has already occurred, and the left has already resorted to intolerance, and the appeal to the "tolerance contract" is the exact same justification that the child gives, "They started it!"

It's not a test. And it's not imaginary. It's a contract. Implied if not literally stated.

It's imaginary nonsense. If an admonition to tolerance were really an invitation to a "tolerance contract," then in every case the opposite party would be seen as being in breach of contract already.

For example, suppose the person on the left is trying to legalize same-sex marriage. They admonish their opponents, "Be tolerant!" Now on your bizarre redefinition, what they are saying is, "Enter into a contract with me where I will be tolerant of you and you will be tolerant of me." But anyone who has thought through this problem for 10 seconds already knows what the response would be, "Using the law to suppress my beliefs and positions is not tolerant. You are already in breach of your 'tolerance contract'."

 

[Bradskii]

For example, suppose the person on the left is trying to legalize same-sex marriage. They admonish their opponents, "Be tolerant!" Now on your bizarre redefinition, what they are saying is, "Enter into a contract with me where I will be tolerant of you and you will be tolerant of me." But anyone who has thought through this problem for 10 seconds already knows what the response would be, "Using the law to suppress my beliefs and positions is not tolerant. You are already in breach of your 'tolerance contract'."

People wanted to marry someone of the same sex. I had no problem with it. If I was asked my opinion I'd give it. As would you. If we argued about it, it would be an honest exchange of views. If I was asked to vote on it then I would. As would you. So far, so good. If it was allowed and became a legal marriage then I'd be happy for those who could now marry. You'd be unhappy. So far, still so good. Each of us acting according to our own personal beliefs.

From here on in I'd expect you to treat a SSM couple with the normal respect you'd show any other couple. I don't expect you to actually attend their marriage. I don't expect you to actually celebrate their anniversary. But I also wouldn't expect any derogatory remarks made about their marriage. I wouldn't expect any intolerant remarks. If you made some then you should expect some blow back.

Feel free to reverse that concept and swap places with me using any example you like. The principle will still hold.

 

[zippy2006]

People wanted to marry someone of the same sex. I had no problem with it. If I was asked my opinion I'd give it. As would you. If we argued about it, it would be an honest exchange of views. If I was asked to vote on it then I would. As would you. So far, so good. If it was allowed and became a legal marriage then I'd be happy for those who could now marry. You'd be unhappy. So far, still so good. Each of us acting according to our own personal beliefs.

From here on in I'd expect you to treat a SSM couple with the normal respect you'd show any other couple. I don't expect you to actually attend their marriage. I don't expect you to actually celebrate their anniversary. But I also wouldn't expect any derogatory remarks made about their marriage. I wouldn't expect any intolerant remarks. If you made some then you should expect some blow back.

Feel free to reverse that concept and swap places with me using any example you like. The principle will still hold.

I already gave the conservative's response in my last post. You vote to create a law which does not tolerate his position, and then you go on to harp about tolerance. He points out that you are a hypocrite, already in breach of your own contract. Your vote to outlaw the traditional definition of marriage is intolerant.

 

[ralliann]

So what's the problem with equality? We're all equal, right?

When people say equality they really mean equity, because how do you even measure equality? But you can measure equity.

Are men and women equal? Are they equal at divorce time? What about when they vote, given that there are more women, more women vote and it's hard for men to vote when they're in prison or homeless?

In reality, there is no equality before the law, before God or anything. The only way to make it happen is by force. And that is where we are headed.

What does the Christian Bible say about equality?

God hates brick altars, but stone altars are just fine. Kind of weird, no? That's because bricks (everybody equal) and stones (everybody unequal) are symbols for people. The Tower of Babel was really about transforming stones into bricks which meant in practice to enslave the people.

It looks like the Woke will win this war. It's too late at this time. I would prepare a plan B for escape. Start learning Spanish and saving money.

Money will be no more. It will be digital credits or deficits like China.

 

[Bradskii]

I already gave the conservative's response in my last post. You vote to create a law which does not tolerate his position, and then you go on to harp about tolerance.

Which disagrees with his position. Disagreeing is not being intolerant. You are free to hold whatever views you want. I will support your right to hold to them and argue for them. Including your right to argue against SSM. How can that in any way be classed as intolerance? It's the very opposite.

 

[ralliann]

I already gave the conservative's response in my last post. You vote to create a law which does not tolerate his position, and then you go on to harp about tolerance. He points out that you are a hypocrite, already in breach of your own contract. Your vote to outlaw the traditional definition of marriage is intolerant.

Certainly. Did you hear it? No derogatory remarks concerning Gay marriage. There goes the bible.

 

[zippy2006]

Which disagrees with his position. Disagreeing is not being intolerant. You are free to hold whatever views you want. I will support your right to hold to them and argue for them. Including your right to argue against SSM. How can that in any way be classed as intolerance? It's the very opposite.

To enact a law or to vote to enact a law is to do more than disagree. Law is a coercive instrument, not a means of persuasion. If, for example, an Australian law is passed which enslaves those with black skin, it would be no use to vote for the law and then turn to the black person, "I disagree with your position. I am not intolerant. Disagreeing is not being intolerant." To vote for such a law is to be intolerant of that person's freedom.

Your posts in this thread perfectly instantiate the reality of the left: Tolerance for me, but not for thee! Heck, the left doesn't even know what "tolerance" means, much less how to apply it impartially.

...but I am going to stick to my conversation with @gaara4158, which seems like it will be the more productive one.

 

[Bradskii]

To enact a law or to vote to enact a law is to do more than disagree. Law is a coercive instrument, not a means of persuasion. If, for example, an Australian law is passed which enslaves those with black skin, it would be no use to vote for the law and then turn to the black person, "I disagree with your position. I am not intolerant. Disagreeing is not being intolerant." To vote for such a law is to be intolerant of that person's freedom.

Your posts in this thread perfectly instantiate the reality of the left: Tolerance for me, but not for thee! Heck, the left doesn't even know what "tolerance" means, much less how to apply it impartially.

...but I am going to stick to my conversation with @gaara4158, which seems like it will be the more productive one.

We shouldn't vote in favour of anything that causes harm to a section of society. That's what the arguments about SSM boiled down to. Did it cause any harm? It didn't. And some people getting all bent out of shape because it did doesn't constitute harm by any stretch of the imagination. Whereas incarcerating people because of skin colour would.

But I still support your right to hold that SSM shouldn't occur. I utterly reject any argument that says it's harmful and I'll accept any argument that says 'it is written'. But I'll tolerate your views either way. I like to think that's reciprocated. It's up to you if you want to confirm or deny that.

 

[gaara4158]

Then you've never listened to the DEI crowd.

Is that the latest three-letter bogeyman we’re upset about now?

 

[gaara4158]

But the confusion really does stem from the falsities of the left. Even in your own post you conflate three different terms: understanding, acceptance, and tolerance.

The right simply takes the left at its word. The foundation of my criticism is the way that the left absolutizes tolerance in speech and practice. That is their core error in this matter, and it is what leads to the strange rationalizations with regards to contracts and the like. The contractual shift allows them to relativize tolerance and instead focus on contractual integrity. This itself is incoherent, for a central premise of the left is that they are the unique possessors and guardians of tolerance. But if it is merely contractual, then they cannot possess it more than anyone else. Contracting for tolerance undermines tolerance as a value, and hence as uniquely possessed.

Yet this contractual approach allows them to maintain the illusion that tolerance is a virtue, and stands alone, unsubordinated. In reality it hardly exists at all and is constantly subordinated to other values, but it is harder to see this when the obfuscation of redefining tolerance as a contract occurs, and when the value to which tolerance is subordinated is never mentioned. More on this below, with respect to your emphasis on understanding and acceptance...


This is instructive. The left "frames tolerance as a virtue," even though it is not. To speak clearly, the left lies about tolerance in order to try to emphasize it to achieve a particular effect.


What you do here is coherent and reasonable in a way that the contractual approach is not. You subordinate tolerance to two entirely different values: understanding and acceptance. It's like saying, "Our real aim is understanding and acceptance, which trump tolerance. When understanding and acceptance are threatened, intolerance is justified." This is coherent, but it is also unheard of from the left. Even in your own post it's not clear that you recognize what you are doing in subordinating tolerance. But the reason it is unheard of is because it is mundane, and it nullifies their claim to be unique. Everyone sacrifices tolerance when it comes to deeper values, and this is because tolerance is not a particularly deep value. It is not a virtue. The left sacrifices tolerance like everyone else, but they pretend otherwise.

We are annoyed with the left's call to "tolerance" because it is a smokescreen. It is a farcical neutrality. The left is no more tolerant than the right. They just profess tolerance more and are therefore more hypocritical. The left wants X and when they can't get it they pretend to appeal to tolerance in order to half-get X. What is X? It is "understanding," "acceptance," but more concretely, it is civil prerogatives for certain groups and identities. If the left wants same-sex marriage, but can't get it, they will pretend to appeal to "tolerance" to move the needle, even though they are no more tolerant of the opposition's position than the opposition is tolerant of theirs. So-called "tolerance" is just a convenient tool to be used when "acceptance" is unavailable.

(Your other point, which I will largely leave aside for now, is that the left is objectively more tolerant because, for example, they don't boycott major beer companies. First I would note that it difficult to objectively assess tolerance, and I think your general claim would require much more argumentation. (Indeed, I think your conclusion that the left is more tolerant is simply false.) Second, the left boycotts and cancels like crazy. If they haven't yet boycotted a major beer company, it is probably because the companies are scared stiff of displeasing the left due to their authoritarian reputation for cancelation.)

I agree that a longer discussion examining the definitions and limits of tolerance and intolerance would be in order at this point if we’re to come to an agreement on which side of the political spectrum is objectively more tolerant. I’m also on vacation, so I can’t commit to the lengthy engagement that would entail. There’s already too much to unpack from your response without diving into that. I’ll leave you in the care of the others here who share my perspective. Thanks for the responses!

 

[Aldebaran]

Is that the latest three-letter bogeyman we’re upset about now?

So are you done trying to defend your, "Homophobes demanding tolerance from the gays are the only ones I ever hear talking about tolerance." assertion?

 

[gaara4158]

So are you done trying to defend your, "Homophobes demanding tolerance from the gays are the only ones I ever hear talking about tolerance." assertion?

It’s still true, so…

 

[gaara4158]

We shouldn't vote in favour of anything that causes harm to a section of society. That's what the arguments about SSM boiled down to. Did it cause any harm? It didn't. And some people getting all bent out of shape because it did doesn't constitute harm by any stretch of the imagination. Whereas incarcerating people because of skin colour would.

But I still support your right to hold that SSM shouldn't occur. I utterly reject any argument that says it's harmful and I'll accept any argument that says 'it is written'. But I'll tolerate your views either way. I like to think that's reciprocated. It's up to you if you want to confirm or deny that.

“You’re infringing on my right to infringe upon your rights! Some protector of rights you are!” It’s not the biting critique they think it is.

 

[Aldebaran]

It’s still true, so…

Then I'd suggest expanding who you listen to.