Nah, I don’t need some long drawn out post on the subject.
I was simply posting examples of what conservatives have defined as “bad”. Whether or not they convince more than 50% of people to believe them is not my concern.
Low corporate taxes = good - necessary evil. Of course lower taxes are better.
Low capital gains taxes = good - ibid.
Welfare = bad - wrong. Hand up, not hand out
Nike = bad - agreed
NFL = bad - agreed
Keurig = bad in response to suppression of speech
Target = bad Shared public restrooms = bad - duplicate. Shared at the same time.
Netflix = bad - for sexualizing children? I’m not sure what this one is.
Locker room talk = good - freedom of speech
Electric cars = bad - by government mandate. I haven’t heard anybody calling for prohibiting them.
Big oil = good - good? Don’t punish them.
Tariffs = good - not good, sometimes necessary.
China = bad - horrible. Gap state bad actor worldwide.
Woke = bad - repressive tolerance. Fanaticism is bad.
CRT = bad - ibid
Climate change = bad - hoax. The bad part is government mandate.
High taxes = bad - to finance a repressive government. You want high taxes?
Police = good - when they follow the law and the law is good.
Religion in government = Good - individual right.
Saying “Happy Holidays” = Bad - forcing me to say it as an employee. Otherwise agreed.
Abortion = bad - a baby dies.
Taxes = bad - necessary evil. Wasting tax money is a sin.
Illegal Immigration = bad - it’s illegal.
Pandemic shutdowns = bad - cure worse than the disease, then yes. It didn’t cure.
Drug = bad - for adults? Agreed.
If I missed any, let me know. There are several in there that are infringements.
@PurpnGold are you familiar with Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance ?
No you didn’t miss anything. But like I said before… I was simply providing examples of conservatives defining bad vs good. They do… frequently.
There’s also a lot of collectivism. Which probably would have saved you time.
Sure they do, I’ve said as much. Do you feel their “bad” suppresses the tenets of liberalism?
1 Like
Yes. Why?
Sure. Drugs, for example. Liberalism would say all drugs should be legal for self use. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
You’re adhering to the incomplete version of it like Gorilla Glue.
Have you read what he actually wrote or just seen the slides?
I agreed and agree. Republicans can be guilty of collectivism as well as progs.
You mean this
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.“
No. I mean this.
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 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.
Which is exactly what your Wokies are doing. Not using rational argument. And “forbidding” their followers to listen to same.
And now the roles are reversing.
1 Like
I thought so.
Isn’t this what conservatives just did at the Capitol? Instead of providing evidence or rational thought… they tried to bully congress to delay or change their votes.
What makes you think Twitter doesn’t have a rational argument to ban anyone from their platform?
Yes. Isn’t this what the Wokeish do with deplatforming?
1 Like
What am I forcibly forbid from listening to? I can go on Twitter right now and see a bunch of conservatives arguing for their philosophy.
I’m here reading the same.
Are conservatives banned for talking about free market principles? Deficit? Deregulation?
Did they make it?
Logistics. Twitter is a platform. Liberalism will let them argue it out until it crosses the illegal line. What did Popper say about laws?
Depends… give me an example.
Of course. You just disagree with it.
Twitter let Trump violate its terms and conditions several times. They gave Trump plenty of leeway. How much intolerance should Twitter allow?
