Is choosing a side and then becoming less tolerant of everyone not on it simply what institutions do? Manifestly it's what they've been doing lately. And it goes beyond purported "LGBTQ+" issues into foreign policy, COVID, etc. Elites simply don't respect neutral values, including honesty. And rights never extend to their opponents.
Friday, August 18, 2023
Vices of all kinds
It's from a few days ago, but Jamie Kirchick has a pretty good rundown of how pink-tinted organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign have grown more censorious and oppressive. Taken in isolation this phenomenon is alarming. Looked at in a broader context it's less surprising, but no better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The article provides a good summation of the inanities we're expected to kowtow to these days. I found myself wondering, and not for the first time, how is it that the ultra liberal, left leaning, well educated crowd suddenly became so dictatorial. Then I remembered reading about Karl Popper's concept of tolerance in which he asked the question what would the result be if a tolerant society tolerates intolerance? His assessment was that unlimited and unchecked tolerance would, almost inevitably, lead to the entire extinction of tolerance.
If an open society accepts the beliefs and behavior of groups like Neo-Nazis then what will inevitably happen is that those groups will take advantage of the lack of restrictions and would practice persecution openly. Any attempt to defend the oppressed would be considered an open act of intolerance. Since unchecked extremists can be expected to remove all tolerant individuals from positions of power, the next step is to replace them with a system of dictatorship.
The Tablet article appears to make a pretty clear example of Popper's conclusion. This is exactly what people of Kelley Robinson's mindset are up to - when questioned simply dissimulate until the time is up and then go back to your gang for kudos.
A lot of people are citing Popper's work on intolerance now. In fact there's a somewhat popular webcomic extrapolated from The Problem of Tolerance, which I think I've written about before. And I think you can see the problem. Many of those citing Popper seem to believe that they're the defenders of democracy and that their opponents are the intolerant threats to it. Thus when they practice censorship and deplatforming (but I repeat myself) they're finally taking the necessary steps to secure democracy. This is entirely deluded, and Popper himself was much more cogent and interesting on the topic.
If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.
There definitely is a danger of unchecked extremists installing a dictatorship to ensure that their viewpoint--the only correct one--remains dominant. This becomes an especially dire peril when a group decides that its concerns override standing concerns like individual rights and truth.
Robinson and her crowd are a prime example. Their priorities are inimical to civil society, so they've tried to make civil society the enemy.
Post a Comment