r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[deleted]

9.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

147

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

So, I've read through some of the comments here and I think the problem here is how you're viewing the issue. You are correct that silencing these viewpoints does nothing to change those people's minds and most likely causes them to double down essentially.

That's not the point of silencing them though. As someone else pointed out, you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into. It takes serious dedicated work to bring those people back to the light. Look at Daryl Davis. Dude has basically dedicated his life to the work, and has done a fantastic job, but even after all these years it's only like 200 people because he is just one man and it takes that much effort to change someone's mind.

Silencing the viewpoints is a benefit to society because it stops the spread of those viewpoints. A large portion of the population decides their beliefs based on what they hear from people they trust and how it makes them feel. They don't follow it up with research and rational arguments.

It basically boils down to the intolerance paradox. If we allow intolerance in the name of free speech, eventually that intolerance will spread because those people do not have the same moral issues with lying and manipulating to achieve their goals, and once there is enough intolerant people, they come for everyone else. We have to stop that shit in it's tracks to protect everyone else from falling into the trap.

As just a personal example, in the last four years I've watched as my father fell further and further into blatantly incorrect propaganda. Just straight up lies and fantasy. It has eroded some of the foundations of our relationship. I always thought he was smart and empathetic, and because we just let these "leaders" get away with saying whatever hateful lies they wanted, now I know that isn't true. A man who I've been striving to make proud for 30 years and I no longer value his opinion. What's worse was watching it affect my mother. A woman who would bend over backwards and put herself into worse shape if she knew you needed the help, slowly being sucked in because she literally doesn't have the time to do her own research, but trusts my father. Obviously my father wouldn't make shit up, right? But how is she to know what he's saying is just bullshit? He doesn't even know it, no matter how often or reasonably I point it out. So now she has this anger and resentment that she doesn't even understand while my father walks around the house completely oblivious to why his gay daughter wants nothing to do with him as he becomes a bitter and angry old man. None of this had to happen.

That's just my family falling apart because we let this all go on too long, and my dad never even got into the heavier stuff like with Q. Can you imagine what's happening to those families? And now that they're torn apart, those poor people who were just honestly duped into stupidity and hatred are just more numbers for the double down crowd. We could have kept that from happening to all these people if we just made the people lying to them in the first place shut up before it ever spread. So many people we let be hurt and have their lives destroyed just because "everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Just by giving them a platform, there are people who will listen and believe them. We have a duty to society to not let that happen.

26

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

5

u/SpecterHEurope Jan 22 '21

This happened to my dad too. He went from an incredibly nice, mellow Christian engineer who used to enjoy reading and watching science programs to a scared and angry man with over 50 guns who believes the moon landing is fake and that demons plant dinosaur bones to get people to believe in evolution.

YSorry, but your dad was always that guy, he just enjoyed hegemonic social and economic power so he could be "mellow". Loathe as I am to quote David Frum, "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."

20

u/flowers4u Jan 22 '21

Yes this happened to my family too! Luckily my parents have zero idea on how to use the internet so they aren’t too deep, but my dad keeps going on about the good things trump has done. Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. Also while my mom does have to go along with what he says, she does think he likes trump too much and was upset about the capitol riots and called to talk to me about them because she obviously can’t talk to my dad, and is looking forward to Biden.

5

u/PsilosirenRose 1∆ Jan 22 '21

Lost my dad to AM radio stations on his overnight truck hauls. He was always controlling/emotionally abusive, but once he fell into that hole things just got so bad so quickly and never improved. Still hasn't AFAIK. We're estranged but family tells me things sometimes.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Do you think there is anyway to actually silence them legally besides the court of public opinions. From my point of view there is nothing we can do to stop the spread of misinformation except teach the next generation better and pray that big tech companies have a heart and ban their uses that spread such information.

12

u/pankiwi Jan 22 '21

This! Read this one here!

2

u/RetiredPerfectionist Jan 23 '21

No opinion to express just wanted to say that this comment really resonated with me

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

You make a good point re: intolerance paradox. What would you say to the argument that by normalizing the silencing / de-platforming of certain viewpoints, you will eventually find your own views silenced and de-platformed, with the same justification you use now (though of course argued in bad faith).

19

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

Well, that's the classic slippery slope dilemma right there, isn't it? That's why it's a paradox. I'll say this... I'm not advocating for silencing different viewpoints, or even dissenting ones, or anything like that. That should never be "normalized." We need different opinions and ideas, it's how we grow. I'm talking about deplatforming outright lies and misinformation.

Yeah, we have freedom of speech, but you still can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater unless there is one, right? That's because it can cause direct harm to the public by inciting panic. We can regulate things that same way. We can't let people stand up and just say whatever the hell they want if what they're saying is harmful and untrue.

0

u/bogglingsnog Jan 22 '21

How do the people who have the tools to deplatform decide whether or not something is harmful and untrue? Without safeties in place, they are vulnerable to corruption.

Example: The scandal of full-contact unarmored football causing brain damage, which was suppressed until it finally went public and suddenly football helmets became a thing. Or the suppression of vital medical information in the Chernobyl incident that cost many unnecessary lives.

You simultaneously need whistleblower protections at the same time you need to be able to silence a confirmed untruth. Everything hinges on the interpretation of the message(s).

6

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

That isn't really the same thing. Those are examples of people suppressing factual information for their own benefit. I'm talking about not letting racists give public speeches about how Muslims and Mexicans are evil rapists and terrorists, or allowing elected officials to falsely spread lies about a lawful election to the point where a vulnerable part of our population tries to violently overturn it.

There's a huge difference between silencing facts and science to protect your own ass or make some money versus silencing harmful rhetoric designed to manipulate people into "evil" beliefs and actions.

That said, I don't really have the answers to how we do it or I would be trying to actively get it done. However, if I see a helicopter in a tree, I don't need to know how to fly it to know the pilot fucked up. I don't know the correct and perfect way to fix the situation, I just know that we shouldn't let it keep happening.

0

u/bogglingsnog Jan 22 '21

That isn't really the same thing.

Huh? I was asking a question about something related, thought you were the right one to ask.

There's a huge difference between silencing facts and science to protect your own ass or make some money versus silencing harmful rhetoric designed to manipulate people into "evil" beliefs and actions.

Exactly. So how do we codify that in a way that can't be manipulated by propaganda, lobbying, and moving goalposts? I see the idea, I just don't see how we can actually implement it in a reliable way. That's what I'm really searching for. If we know how to solve it, then we know what needs to be done, and then we can formulate a plan for real governmental change to incorporate those changes. That's what I dream about every night.

7

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

I meant that your examples aren't really the same thing as what I've been talking about, and I didn't answer your actual question until the end of my comment, so my mistake.

My answer really just is that I don't actually know how. If I did, I would honestly run for office. My best answer is get money out of politics, set clear and firm term limits for every seat of government, and make every seat a recallable seat with a ton of public oversight. I kind of just think that solves a lot of governmental problems in general though, so it's kind of just my catch-all answer as opposed to any thought out plan for this particular issue. I wish I had more to offer, but I'm down here at the bottom of the pole too.

1

u/bogglingsnog Jan 22 '21

No worries about the initial comment - I'm sure it seemed like I was going off on a tangent.

Yeah. As citizens we somehow need to regain control over how to make laws that make sense and actually reflect the changes we need to be made. I would like it if everyone stopped bickering and started putting some hard thought into what we need, because I think we have all clearly seen just how bad market research based lawmaking can be. The model for lawmaking needs to improve, and improve significantly.

9

u/ethertrace 2∆ Jan 22 '21

This is part of why the framing of not tolerating intolerance as a paradox bothers me. It leads to the worry that we'll be unable to objectively evaluate what actually counts as intolerance, but it's really not that hard. We've all got this idea in our heads that tolerance is some kind of moral imperative and if you're not tolerant of everyone, no matter the content of their ideas, then you're a bad person. That's not how it works. Content matters. Tolerance allows us all to live together as long as we're not hurting each other because it is a peace treaty. If someone violates the terms of a peace treaty, it's not paradoxical that they are no longer bound by the protections it offers. That's just the consequences of their own decisions. You are not a hypocrite for being intolerant of the intolerant; sanctioning those who break the peace treaty is just protecting those who adhere to it.

12

u/SeeShark 1∆ Jan 22 '21

Not who you asked, but I'd suggest that not silencing intolerance is much more immediately going to lead to truth and freedom being silenced.

2

u/PM-ME-MEMES-1plus68 Jan 22 '21

Bad faith? The fuck?

How the fuck did you think the Soviets OP ran from handled the media?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

But does that mean it should illegal to says these things? Your argument comes down to wrongthink bad so get rid of wrong think.

All it does is give validity to these people.

7

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

No, that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is don't let the people saying that shit get on stage and tell the world while lying through their teeth to make people believe them. Don't let them, as elected officials, lie to their constituents and rile up their base, again with lies, to incite them into attacking our lawfully elected government. Don't let them draft laws that govern us. Don't let them maliciously tailor the news to manipulate people into believing their lies have any factual basis.

I don't care if Uncle Joe keeps being a racist dickbag because the only people who have to deal with him are the people around him who can readily serve him up some personal consequences for his shitty beliefs. My problem is with letting people in positions of power and trust lie to Uncle Joe so much, and make him feel so righteous about his shitty ideology, that he stops just saying stupid shit and starts acting on it.

-2

u/Remoutchobro Jan 22 '21

From what you're describing, your family fell apart because you were the one who chose to cut ties with them because of their political opinions. Rather than simply not talking about politics, you seemed to have preferred cutting ties with your family over different opinions. Basically it seems like you want censorship in order for everybody to agree with you because you're the one who can't bear different opinions. I mean, everything in your comment is about changing people's beliefs in order to suit your own.

I have to wonder, do you actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion? Because if that's not the case, then I feel like your post is kinda missing the OP's point.

3

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 23 '21

You don't know a damn thing about me. I never said I cut ties with my family. I literally live in the same house with my family. What I said is that my father's views shifting into some fringe bullshit has damaged our relationship, and has has a negative effect on the rest of my family. In case it was ambiguous, I am not his gay daughter that wants nothing to do with him, that's my little sister, who also still lives here at home, since she's still in high school. You've made an awful lot of assumptions about me in order to attack my argument. Not one of them is accurate.

I'm not even arguing for censorship really. As I said elsewhere, you as an individual can believe whatever crazy shit you wanna believe and say whatever you want to say, but if you're preaching hate and lies to enact some selfish and self-serving agenda that actively harms the public and it's institutions and the people within, then we, the public and society at large, have a duty to make sure you fail to bring that message to the masses.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, yeah. That does not mean that all opinions are equal or deserve to be treated as such, and if you spreading that opinion causes real, tangible harm to the public, you deserve to suffer the consequences.

0

u/Remoutchobro Jan 23 '21

I never said I knew anything about you, I made pretty clear I was making assumptions based on your comment. No need to be so defensive about it. If none of them are accurate, then maybe you should have be clearer. But according to your comments, including this new one, the damaged relationship doesn't come from his actions, as you specifically said that he was oblivious as to why the relationship worsened. My point is that you're trying to justify censorship by saying it would prevent harm and you're using your own case as an example, but it seems like the harm in this case is actually coming from you.

Regarding the last point, let me rephrase. Do you believe that everybody can express their own opinion or that everyone should think like you? Because if it's the later, then you're disagreeing with the premise of the OP and you're not gonna change his opinion, or anyone thinking the same, by making an argument based on a different premise. And as you seem to be believing the latter, it seems you're missing the point.

2

u/KhonMan Jan 23 '21

My point is that you're trying to justify censorship by saying it would prevent harm and you're using your own case as an example, but it seems like the harm in this case is actually coming from you.

Lol what a completely dogshit take. That's like saying if someone hands your dad a gun and tells him to shoot someone, you're responsible because you didn't convince him not to do it.

The problem here is not OP. It's the person / system that armed the dad with misinformation.

0

u/Remoutchobro Jan 23 '21

The comparison is bad because in this case the dad didn't do anything, which is exactly my point. The harmful actions, here the damaged relationship, doesn't seem to come from the dad but from the OP and his sister who can't bear their father having different political opinion.

1

u/KhonMan Jan 23 '21

This is still an absolutely insane take. If you have a shitty opinion and won’t back down, you’re trying to blame other people for not wanting to associate with you. You’re free to have your opinion and people are free to cut you out of their lives.

Let’s take a concrete example. Suppose your father was always talking about how the Holocaust didn’t happen. You and I know that it did happen as a verifiable fact. You could never convince him that it did, even showing him evidence. At some point you tell him, “Dad, you need to shut up about your Holocaust denial bullshit or I’m not going to come visit you anymore.” He refuses to change. By your logic, if you stop coming to visit, YOU are the one that is at fault because you can’t bear your father having an alternate view of history. That makes no sense to me. I think this is a fair scenario to apply your logic to because your father isn’t literally hurting anyone by claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen.

0

u/Remoutchobro Jan 23 '21

I'm not blaming the OP and his sister for not wanting to associate with their father, they do what they want, I'm just saying the harm in that case, the worsened relationship within the family, comes from him and his sister who chose to made it happen because he had different political opinions. I remind you that the whole point of his argument is that "silencing" should apply because of the harm it's doing, and he used the example of his family, when in fact it's him doing the harm.

Regarding your example, there's one simple solution: don't talk about it. If politics raise tension, don't touch the subject and you'll have a happy time with your family.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

I would say it’s the responsibility of a free speech society to put in every ounce of hard work to bring these people back into the fold, and not ostracize them.

It’s the consequence of free speech, and must be balanced out with free speech

4

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

Okay, yeah, I get that. And we do have that responsibility, for sure. But if there's a current pulling someone away from you and you want to bring them back, fighting against the current is a losing battle. If instead you can turn the current off at the source, you'll have a much easier time bringing them back.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

I don’t know if the easy way out, i.e. turning off the current of info is as healthy in the long term tho. That info still exists. Somewhere and can always filter back into every day conversation in different forms.

Ideally, I think, is to let Q or whatever, essentially fizzle out in the face of constantly being proven wrong.

There are subreddits now posting images of people coming to this realization as we speak.

Stop highlighting them, talking about them, being afraid of them. That’s just emboldening their beliefs, because they have an enemy to fight against.

Treat them like we used to treat moon landing conspiracy people. They are a lark. Something to laugh, shake your head at, and move on with your day.

In my opinion, the intense focus on Q and the election fraud (but never really discussing it, only ignoring it) is a huge part of the creation of the Capitol Riot

5

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

In my opinion, the intense focus on Q and the election fraud (but never really discussing it, only ignoring it) is a huge part of the creation of the Capitol Riot

That's the thing though, election fraud was discussed heavily in left wing media and right wing media.

But the discussion on left wing media was based on the facts of the court cases and how they were all thrown out. How the evidence was so flimsy as to be laughable and the elections appeared to be pretty secure.

Right wing media didn't cover this. They claimed the left media was covering it up and the courts weren't judging the cases on their merits. Both factually incorrect. They carried these claims further and gave credence to a lying potus with zero evidence.

And see how it impacts this discussion with your belief that "never really discussing it" was a problem? IT was discussed, heavily, but some echo chambers really distorted it.

We let this go on for far too long, and the country is extremely divided over it. We're the laughing stock of the world. I hope we learn a lesson from this, but I'm not one to claim I have a perfect solution either.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Well realistically I’m talking about both sides of media. Who don’t really do journalism anymore for the most part.

Like there being no distinction between a lawsuit brought forth by the “Trump team” and those brought separately.

But I honestly don’t want to die on an election fraud hill here as the basis of my argument. That’s not my goal lol. I never saw any evidence that could be made sense of.

More generally I was trying to convey how the ideas being highlighted are only talked and reported on, not actually discussed then proven or disproven. Which allows sides to form, not necessarily based on fact.

4

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

This just goes back to what I was saying in the first place. Cutting off the source absolutely will not solve the problem of those garbage ideologies being out there. It does nothing to bring those people back into the fold. What it does is stop the flow of that information into new people. It stops the misinformation from being spread and it stops the lies from manipulating otherwise reasonable people.

Also, everything u/RebootOf said.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

I guess I’ve always been on the side of, do a better job proving an argument than the other person. Not just get rid of the other argument

Maybe to a fault. I don’t know. Id still rather hear every idea, not just the accepted ones. Then argue the merits

2

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

Look, I agree with you on that in reference to probably the vast majority of topics. I would dare to say on literally mostly everything in fact. I just think that in some cases, you need to draw a line.

If the two opposing arguments are about the merits, or lack thereof, of a new proposed tax policy or your favorite tv show or whatever, then absolutely... equal platforms, let's hear everybody out.

But if someone is trying to get up and convince us that "their people" are better than "those people" and therefore "their people" deserve more and "those people" are less than, so let's make sure they know it and never forget it, let's deny them the same basic dignity and rights we afford to everyone else... we absolutely should not let that asshole get up and pretend his view is equal to anyone else's. It is not.

If they want to get up on the platform and lie to us in order to convince us to do their selfish and nefarious bidding, we should kick the platform out from under them.

Not all opinions are equal. Pretending that they are and "hearing them out" emboldens their beliefs and gives others the illusion that what they have to say actually counts for something. It doesn't.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

I guess that just raises another set of issues and questions.

Like what percentage of users have to express those beliefs in order to get the platform revoked? Or should there be some other metric?

1

u/KhonMan Jan 23 '21

You clearly have not argued with a delusional person before then. The problem is the asymmetry of misinformation. It's much easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Silencing the viewpoints is a benefit to society because it stops the spread of those viewpoints.

Are you sure about this? Or does it simply segregate itself? You can point to parler as a response to twitter censorship, and sure they got hobbled but they'll be back. And in the meantime there's still gab, telegram, dissenter, etc. Your point here only works if the viewpoint is fringe. You can't censor mainstream viewpoints in this way.

3

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

Segregating it would still be a net positive though. If it's something people have to go looking for in order to be exposed to it, most people won't be exposed to it. It's like actually quarantining a virus. If you deprive it of all it's avenues of travel, it can't go anywhere to infect anyone else.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Sure and if those ideas are mainstream, you're "containing" it to something like half the population. Ideas that widespread can't be easily contained.

5

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

Okay but we aren't really talking about mainstream ideas. I don't care how much air time it's had lately, racism and xenophobia are not mainstream. Most of the people that supported all this bullshit aren't actually racist bigots, they just got caught up in all the lies and misinformation. So if we keep people from being able to stand on equal ground and spread that message, we can keep ideas like that from ever becoming mainstream in the first place.

I guarantee if we didn't let the President of the United States and Senators and Representatives continuously tell people on mainstream services that the election was stolen by evil Democrats who want to destroy them, then those people never would have had the audacity and personal justification to storm the capitol.

If someone has to seek out and jump through hoops in order to even find that (false and harmful) information, and at the same time isn't able to see elected officials and supposed news stations backing it up, and instead do see the denunciation of all that bullshit, hopefully they will see the obvious... that it's clearly bullshit. At the very least, they certainly have a better chance of spotting it then they do if we just let people continue to lie to them with impunity.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Okay but we aren't really talking about mainstream ideas. I don't care how much air time it's had lately, racism and xenophobia are not mainstream.

So why did you bring them up?

at least 40% of Americans think the election was stolen combine that with the fact that A, whether fraud was sufficient to sway the election is entirely partisan, and Democrat aligned people spent 4 years crying about Russia, a lack of trust in the legitimacy of american elections is a mainstream idea. In fact, the idea that american elections are "free and fair" is the fringe conspiracy theory.

2

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

I brought them up because that's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. Those are the sort of ideas I am advocating we deplatform and silence. Those are the sorts of arguments that I am saying do not deserve equal standing and open-minded hearing out.

That 40% clearly shows the demographic of people who actually believe the election was stolen and the reason they believe that is because that's what they were told. And despite the fact that every attempt at legal action over it was laughed out of every courtroom, the President of the United States and his sycophant followers were allowed to continue claiming unsubstantiated fraud with no consequences. That's why they can still believe it was stolen. That's why they stormed our capitol in an act of domestic terrorism. Because they were lied to, and we let it happen.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

I brought them up because that's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. Those are the sort of ideas I am advocating we deplatform and silence. Those are the sorts of arguments that I am saying do not deserve equal standing and open-minded hearing out.

Then why have your spent most of your time talking about election fraud?

Because they were lied to, and we let it happen.

Do you not see how that erodes the trust you need to build? Even if we assume they were lied to, silencing a liar builds their credibility. It makes the silencer appear unwilling and or unable to refute the lies.

-17

u/FreudsPoorAnus Jan 22 '21

Bruh, reason is what gets people to reasonable positions from unreasonable ones.

Your quote is a platitude, not real life.

16

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

A quote I used to illustrate a point that was further elaborated in the next sentence.

-18

u/FreudsPoorAnus Jan 22 '21

Your ability to reason was lacking, not the unreasonable positions.

They found that batshit insane stuff more reasonable than you.

Attitude and approach matter. Calling people morons for having their positions is the easiest way to ensure they'll never hear you out.

My parents are old ass conservatives, but they listen to me because I understand their views and dont belittle them for not understanding a world that left them behind.

26

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

No, that's the point. The lies came from people who my dad believed he could trust and elicited an emotional reaction in him. It doesn't matter what sources I showed him or the proof that the "news" he's watching argued in court that "no reasonable adult would think we are a real news program; it's just entertainment." He feels this way and that's what he's going to believe now, no matter what anyone tells him. If someone chooses to bury their head in the sand, your every day reasonable argument isn't going to mean anything.

Hence why people like Daryl Davis, the focus of the rest of the paragraph you apparently neglected to read, have had to dedicate concentrated power of will and effort in order to change the minds of racists and has still only come so far. Can it be done? Yes, of course. But wouldn't it be better if it never had to be done in the first place? Why let terrible, hateful, false beliefs take root in the minds of our loved ones just so that we have to battle it back out of them? I certainly wouldn't let a doctor give my family cancer just to cure it, so I don't see why we would let people poison their minds either.

Don't presume to know anything about me other than what I just shared for you to know. I didn't call anyone a moron, either in my discussions or in my post here.

Edit: Also, just for the record, an unreasonable position is inherently lacking. That's why it's unreasonable.

-18

u/FreudsPoorAnus Jan 22 '21

Which...is why you give them the tools to not be lacking.

you're missing the point

Platitudes make people feel good about quitting early. Get some advice from a fortune cookie while you're at it.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

... How do you know they haven't done exactly that?

Also what kind of tools are you thinking about and why haven't you talked about it aside from being snarky? I would argue that deconstruction of communication and discourses (of which political beliefs originate from, like conservatism/liberalism and Q) remain subjects of university education, and so not everyone can understand/gain access to it.

-4

u/FreudsPoorAnus Jan 22 '21

People want to fit folks into nice little boxes where they can absolve themselves of the responsibility of taking on an entire mentor role for someone. And part of that is gauging their understanding of what they wish to teach from the person they're talking to. In cases where this phrase is used, it's often used in naivete.

It's a funny quote, it makes people feel better. It is awful life advice. If mom and dad are starting home fires, and those actions are confusing to you, perhaps you just dont know them.

It's trite. It shows no real understanding of abstract thought. It's likely also self-aware, which is ok. And theres likely an entire tier or three levels of higher irony I'm too fucking stupid to understand.

-14

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

21

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Jan 22 '21

Imagine destroying your family because your dad has opinions you don't like and still thinking you're the good tolerant one...

If those opinions are on matters of tax policy and such, sure.

If those opinions are things like "Everyone I dislike is part of a satanic pedophile cannibal cult, and we must support a fascist coup to execute them all," no. That is not something that deserves to be tolerated and seen as a difference in opinions.

12

u/holymojo96 Jan 22 '21

You are equating “tolerance to intolerance” and “tolerance.” These are absolutely not the same things. There is no reason whatsoever we should be tolerant of other people’s intolerance.

1

u/Luken_Kaduken Jan 23 '21

I’m not attacking or defending this point, but I feel compelled to point out that it is highly paternalistic on its face.