War Room Lounge v80: It's gigantic, but will it fill that gap?

[JamesRussler]

Now you're just playing bullshit word games. You're smart enough to know about the paradox of tolerance, or at least to look it up.

Yeah I know about the “paradox of tolerance.” It’s not a particularly profound or helpful way of viewing things. Bottom line is you fancy yourself the good guy, so intolerance of bad people is justified so long as you’re the one making the value judgments.

Here's the reality: If you have a tolerant group and an intolerant group in the same society, you will not find cohesion between them. One must change for cohesion to occur. So a couple questions arise: is cohesion even possible, and if so, at what costs? And if the costs are worth it, which side should be advanced?

It’s pretty reductive to just label these two groups as “tolerant” and “intolerant.” If the tolerant group is comprised entirely of philes, then of course we advance the side of those intolerant anti-philes.

But assuming the two sides are morally equivalent (that is, it’s purely a cultural clash), then it just becomes a question of how important each side’s respective values are. It doesn’t matter who “should be advanced,” because all that matters is who advances. If your values aren’t important enough to preserve, then assimilate. If they are, you better get ready to fight or run. Jews resisted assimilation for thousands of years in spite of momentous pressure to do so, because their ethnic identity was that important to them. Kurds have resisted similar pressure in the Levant. These people have paid a heavy price, but apparently it was worth it to them. The Jews now have their own nation state. The Kurds, not so much. That’s just the way it goes. History makes no guarantees about your survival.

There is no reason why diverse groups of people cannot be peaceful, happy or prosperous but for intolerant people in positions of power. And vice versa.

Again, that’s terribly reductive. There are countless reasons diverse people cannot co-exist in the same space. Lumping them all under “intolerance” just shows you don’t care about other peoples’ concerns.

There is one problem, though: a hierarchical society will always need an oppressed underclass. If you exclude the all homosexuals, then you will move on to the non-Christians, then the poor, then the disabled, then women, etc. Where do you think is a logical Schelling point where people can agree that they won't cross?

I don’t know, maybe go and ask somebody who wants a strict hierarchical society.

Look, I'm going to call it like I see it: You claim to want a cohesive society, but it appears what you really want is a society that bends itself to your world view rather than for you to have to personally adapt to it. You don't want to oppress or marginalize different people who's lifestyles or beliefs fall outside your world view, but if it's a consequence of your world view that's a fair price to achieve "cohesion". It makes me skeptical if what you say you want is true. Do you want cohesion because you think it is worth the discrimination it causes to marginal groups, or do you want cohesion because it discriminates those groups?

What do you not understand about this? Cohesive societies are cohesive because they don’t include everyone on the planet. If you haven’t noticed, the terrestrial Earth is carved up into hundreds of tiny nation states, of which very few are diverse in any sense of the word. There’s a reason for that. The diverse peoples of the world have diverse worldviews. Your refrain of cultural pluralism rings hollow in all but a handful of Western countries, and it is quickly losing support there too. So are you gonna lecture the Indians on their caste system? You gonna lecture the Chinese about inclusion or tolerance? Or did you save all your virtuosity for my home country?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Yeah I know about the “paradox of tolerance.” It’s not a particularly profound or helpful way of viewing things. Bottom line is you fancy yourself the good guy, so intolerance of bad people is justified so long as you’re the one making the value judgments.



It’s pretty reductive to just label these two groups as “tolerant” and “intolerant.” If the tolerant group is comprised entirely of philes, then of course we advance the side of those intolerant anti-philes.

But assuming the two sides are morally equivalent (that is, it’s purely a cultural clash), then it just becomes a question of how important each side’s respective values are. It doesn’t matter who “should be advanced,” because all that matters is who advances. If your values aren’t important enough to preserve, then assimilate. If they are, you better get ready to fight or run. Jews resisted assimilation for thousands of years in spite of momentous pressure to do so, because their ethnic identity was that important to them. Kurds have resisted similar pressure in the Levant. These people have paid a heavy price, but apparently it was worth it to them. The Jews now have their own nation state. The Kurds, not so much. That’s just the way it goes. History makes no guarantees about your survival.



Again, that’s terribly reductive. There are countless reasons diverse people cannot co-exist in the same space. Lumping them all under “intolerance” just shows you don’t care about other peoples’ concerns.



I don’t know, maybe go and ask somebody who wants a strict hierarchical society.



What do you not understand about this? Cohesive societies are cohesive because they don’t include everyone on the planet. If you haven’t noticed, the terrestrial Earth is carved up into hundreds of tiny nation states, of which very few are diverse in any sense of the word. There’s a reason for that. The diverse peoples of the world have diverse worldviews. Your refrain of cultural pluralism rings hollow in all but a handful of Western countries, and it is quickly losing support there too. So are you gonna lecture the Indians on their caste system? You gonna lecture the Chinese about inclusion or tolerance? Or did you save all your virtuosity for my home country?

Greoric could have learned a lesson from you on how to dress this stuff up lol
Heeeeeeeeavy on the rouge lmao

 

[JamesRussler]

Greoric could have learned a lesson from you on how to dress this stuff up lol
Heeeeeeeeavy on the rouge lmao

Pete, thank God you're here.

Hey Pete, from the Native American perspective, is cultural pluralism good bad?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

It serves a very important purpose: verifying the identity of the voter. Voters are already required to register, so this is basically an extension of that. Perhaps we should have an option to issue FREE voter IDs (w/ photo and fingerprint) when people register. What do you think about that? Voters could present these IDs at the voting booth as an alternative to driver's license / Real ID / passport. Or perhaps we could verify identity with fingerprints. We have to verify identity somehow.

That's a pretty decent idea.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Pete, thank God you're here.

Hey Pete, from the Native American perspective, is cultural pluralism good bad?

Hang on let me ask everyone

 

[JamesRussler]

Hang on let me ask everyone

That's okay, you can speak for them all.

 

[BarryDillon]

 

[Sketch]

Dear god, only in Barry land is this a band thing. You rubes think this is the cold war 2.0. You'd love another war.

 

[Limbo Pete]

That's okay, you can speak for them all.

 

[Deleted member 539235]

lol when you have absolutely nothing to come back at someone with, go after their "like" count

doesn't this place have a minimum sign-up age? i think the war room should be 16+ at least

 

[Fawlty]

The cure for all of this is still pussy. Time-tested. Just saying.

 

[BarryDillon]

The cure for all of this is still pussy. Time-tested. Just saying.

Honestly, I still want my Homer account back, even with all the pussy I've been getting.

There's no real cure for Sherdogitis.

 

[HereticBD]

lol when you have absolutely nothing to come back at someone with, go after their "like" count

doesn't this place have a minimum sign-up age? i think the war room should be 16+ at least

When someone demonstrates that they're clearly rustled by it, you sweep the leg.

 

[Deleted member 539235]

When someone demonstrates that they're clearly rustled by it, you sweep the leg.

there's a good number of 2019 accounts, plus older ones that should know better, who think it actually matters and pointing out someones shite ratio is somehow a win lol

i didn't even post until a year after i joined but you don't see me flopping my giant e-penis out on the table because i've got class

 

[HereticBD]

there's a good number of 2019 accounts, plus older ones that should know better, who think it actually matters and pointing out someones shite ratio is somehow a win lol

What is a "win" on an internet forum, exactly?

 

[Deleted member 539235]

What is a "win" on an internet forum, exactly?

hold up. it has come to my attention that you have less than 2 : 1 ratio of likes to posts

as such, i can no longer be seen to be associating with you

 

[Fawlty]

What is a "win" on an internet forum, exactly?

You were just talking about sweeping the leg a second ago...surely you are confusing yourself here.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Car on the field lol

 

[HereticBD]

hold up. it has come to my attention that you have less than 2 : 1 ratio of likes to posts

as such, i can no longer be seen to be associating with you

Answer the question.

 

[Deleted member 539235]

Answer the question.