Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20038
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:55 am

Greetings,
binocular wrote:Truth and falsity are usually determined by the one who holds more power: true is what the person in position of greater power says that is true; and false is what the person in position of greater power says that is false.
As a reminder...
At Dhamma Wheel, we respect your intellectual and spiritual autonomy. As such, the staff here will not enforce reverence to anyone or anything, nor censor speech gratuitously. In keeping with this respect for your autonomy, we expect you to be personally responsible for your own emotions and responses.
To use the language of Binocular's quote, "the person in position of greater power" in your life is you.

Determine for yourself what is truth. Staff here have no authoritarian urges to decide for you what is true.

As for how to relate to others, I think Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh's advice, sourced from his 14 Precepts of Engaged Buddhism is both good and tolerant... "Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education."

If we have cravings to control what other think, feel or believe, it may be worth reflecting on what drives such authoritarian urges to control others.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

binocular
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by binocular » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:46 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:55 am
Determine for yourself what is truth.
Millennia of philosophy down the drain.

The kind of relativism that you espouse would be fitting for a postmodernist forum (but not even there, really), but not for a religious one where words are actually expected to mean something and things be either true or false.
Staff here have no authoritarian urges to decide for you what is true.
They very much do. That's why they usually use the aggressive communication style, not the assertive one.

As for how to relate to others, I think Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh's advice, sourced from his 14 Precepts of Engaged Buddhism is both good and tolerant... "Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education."
*sigh*
He who battles virtue-signalling and white-knighting should beware not to become a virtue-signaller and white-knight himself.
If we have cravings to control what other think, feel or believe, it may be worth reflecting on what drives such authoritarian urges to control others.
Again:
Millennia of philosophy down the drain.


Your resorting to this facile relativism and extreme individualism is pernicious. Solipsism is the refuge of madmen.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20038
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:57 am

Greetings Binocular,
binocular wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:46 am
Millennia of philosophy down the drain. The kind of relativism that you espouse would be fitting for a postmodernist forum (but not even there, really), but not for a religious one where words are actually expected to mean something and things be either true or false.
You're totally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what was said.

I'm not saying that "your truth" is "the truth"... it's just that the purpose of this forum is not about trying to force "the truth" on anyone. Rather, it's about providing a space where people can share and explore ideas and views for themselves, without coercion. Providing that environment, and going through that interactive exploration with other Buddhists, rather than dogmatically accepting teachings from authority figures, actually maximises the likelihood that "your truth" will be aligned with "the truth" - which is not owned by anyone.

That same perspective, which has been applied to Dhamma discussion, also guides the mode of engagement we have attempted to establish in the News section. Now, admittedly, in the past there were instances (circa 2015/16) when certain staff members took it upon themselves to "force their truth" upon others, and to moderate (and ban members!) according to their own views, preferences and priorities rather than the Terms of Service, but those people have since been relieved of their duties.

Despite the tolerance of the current staff, there are serial complainants amongst our membership who remain chronically intolerant of worldly or political views that deviate from their own. Whenever the opportunity arises, they invariably create a hubbub that opposing views are even allowed to exist in the News section. In a world where people have created their own self-styled, technology-enabled "echo chambers", where they self-source their news from preferred outlets, I guess it's unsurprising that some of the views expressed in "an open marketplace of ideas" will be challenging for some people. Nonetheless, I am surprised and somewhat disappointed at how intolerant certain individuals are about the mere presence of opposing views, and how they endeavour to make their private discomfiture with opposing views, a public matter for others to deal with and endure. So much for the Buddha's teachings on endurance and sense restraint.

That said, as pointed out earlier in this topic, there is this from the Rules for the News Section...
5. We do understand that politics can be an emotional or disruptive subject for some people. Therefore if you wish, you may voluntarily opt out of the News section by following the instructions here. Because participation in the News, Current Events & Politics section is entirely optional (and won't even show up in your "Active Topics" search, if you opt out), please refrain from meta-discussion in the form of complaining about the existence of such topics here at Dhamma Wheel. If they are burdensome to you personally, simply opt out.

Failure to abide by the rules and standards specific to this forum may result in access to the News, Current Events & Politics forum being revoked.
Staff would be well within their rights to start locking people out of the News section if they're unwilling to engage in sense restraint and are going to remain chronically intolerant of its presence, or of the presence of unfavoured views therein.
binocular wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:46 am
That's why they usually use the aggressive communication style, not the assertive one.
I'd suggest that what you experience as an "aggressive communication style" is actually the Dhamma Wheel staff getting sick and tired of the way you unfairly project your historical experiences with religious authorities onto us, as if we were personally responsible for any dukkha that befell you in former years. We do not deserve that, and it would be decent of you, and certainly appreciated by me, if from now on you were mindful to strive harder to differentiate between what staff actually do, versus the qualities and motives that you impute upon them based upon your former misadventures with people who are not us.

We do not deserve to be on the end of your unfair projections - enough is enough.

( See binocular, I told you I wasn't advocating relativism. ;) )

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3355
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Mr Man » Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:57 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:26 am

As you can see, the "person" and the "idea" are clearly differentiated in the rules of the News section, and the forum-wide Terms of Service. This is a deliberate measure, which if held to, both fosters appropriate behaviours, and enables a free marketplace of ideas.
Hi Paul

This is what I was getting at in my conversation with Sam. It is clear that personal racist, homophobic, misogynistic attacks are against ToS but
it seems that racist, homophobic, misogynistic ideas and content are not, per se.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20038
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:24 am

Greetings Mr. Man,

Yes, and the distinction is quite deliberate.

(I'm on my phone so it would be too onerous to provide a link but) Take a look at the conversation between Alan and Circle5 starting up in relation to race and IQ.

Now, it would be all too easy for someone to declare that the content/ideas supporting Circle5's position are racist. Yet, if they are valid studies, are we going to start saying science is racist? If I brought forward a study showing that by normal distribution, men are physically stronger than women, is that content sexist or misogynistic? Should such views be prohibited? Should those who express them be banned.

.... and so on.

As per previous posts, we don't see it as our place to tell you what is true or false in our capacity as staff. Our intention is to allow each individual to interact with others and come to their own conclusions in a free marketplace of ideas. The minute that marketplace of ideas is not free, is the minute we're interfering with that process. That said, certain types of content are prohibited by the ToS, as I see you've been discussing with others... but as for views and opinions, we don't have a book burning attitude - we just want members to act in a civilized manner, adhering to some basic standards for civil discourse.

As per Modus Ponens' post, bad ideas should be countered by good ideas... that's the only way they'll ever really be defeated. Censorship doesn't make them go away.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3355
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Mr Man » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:41 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:24 am
Greetings Mr. Man,

Yes, and the distinction is quite deliberate.

Thanks for a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. For some reason Sam did not wish to acknowledge this or was unaware.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:44 am

Mr Man wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:41 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:24 am
Greetings Mr. Man,

Yes, and the distinction is quite deliberate.

Thanks for a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. For some reason Sam did not wish to acknowledge this or was unaware.
Sam and Retrofuturist are different people. It is possible they have different ideas as to the ramifications of the wording of the TOS.

Deliberately leaving opening a door to racist ideas, as if ideas can be separated from people who think then up (absurd!), certainly seems like an odd idea. Or perhaps it's based on the notion that proliferating an aggressive ideology on the internet isn't an "action" like assaulting someone would be. It's just a "harmless view".

I can imagine others presuming the best and being somewhat surprised by this honesty.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20038
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:54 am

Greetings Coëmgenu,
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:44 am
Deliberately leaving opening a door to racist ideas, as if ideas can be separated from people who think then up (absurd!), certainly seems like an odd idea. Or perhaps it's based on the notion that proliferating an aggressive ideology on the internet isn't an "action" like assaulting someone would be. It's just a "harmless view".
I linked to this article before, but it seems opportune now to replicate it here...
Generation Hugbox
by Natasha Maria Phoenix

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

Once upon a time classical liberalism was known for advocating free speech, free thinking, open discourse, and challenging dogmas. In the modern use, liberals are associated with the sexual revolution and freedom of alternative lifestyle. These days, liberalism has become something altogether different. It has become the very thing it once hated, and it is not even aware of this change.

Secular dogmas have been created, proper conduct has been decided, the socially just are the righteous, and any who deviate are committing a secular sin. Some have called it “political correctness.” I find this phrase overused and meaningless. What we are witnessing is a passive totalitarian control of the public discourse.

The Internet has allowed the creation of echo chambers, or better put, hugboxes. Like-minded individuals come together and wallow in emotional pity, confirm one another’s perspective, and rant against an unjust world. The most destructive result of this is the intolerance towards any differing perspective. Mainstream news, academia, and college campuses have adopted this ‘hugbox’ mode. Essentially the discourse is narrowed, the correct positions are praised and confirmed, any deviating views are condemned.

The narrowed discourse is incredibly leftist in values, and criticism of that is equivalent to committing some kind of unspoken secular sin. If one disrupts the hugbox environment then feelings are hurt and the “sinner” is scolded in hopes they will see the error of their ways. The hugbox does not cultivate the mind nor the soul, it only indulges in sentimentalism and creates thin-skinned individuals. Furthermore there is an air of self-righteousness about them. They have found the true way, the path to secular enlightenment, of love and peace, and those poor souls who deviate are lost in ignorance. This is not intellectual. It is not even intellectualism. It is a tool produced by a strictly controlled discourse.

Aristotle made the insightful statement which I began the article with. Acknowledging, listening to, comprehending, tolerating another’s position and ideology is not the same as accepting it. Only a weak mind cannot tolerate or entertain an opposing position. It takes time to develop this ability, and most never do. Each person is attached to their particular position, their ideology, and vary in their passion. This is human. It requires a subtle non-attachment to allow oneself to entertain the opposing position or ideologies which one dislikes. In my own personal studies I have read and attempted to comprehend extreme far right ideologies such as white supremacy, black supremacy, fascist nationalism, and so forth. I do not agree with these positions in the least, nor do I excuse them ethically. Understanding does not mean condoning.

The intellectual realm is a lost cause if it cannot entertain and comprehend positions outside of its narrow hugbox of a discourse. The intellect cannot flourish if it can only accept confirmations and not opposition. There is no free thinking if there is a prison fence to keep one safe and feelings unharmed. An excellent practice is finding an ideology of the complete polar opposite of one’s own, study it, talk to people of that ideology, attempt to comprehend it, put your personal feelings aside, and perhaps even experiment using their perspective of the world. Free thinking should be dangerous, not safe. A healthy intellectual environment challenges every presumed notion and closely held belief. It should sunder the mind and soul, leaving the individual to put the pieces back together.

Indeed, the left prides itself on being open minded and intellectual, though its actions have shown the opposite. A narrowed discourse produces a closed mind and thin skin. Emotions and passions are powerful, but again there must be danger if there is to be content. One’s feelings, one’s sense of self, one’s esteem, the world owes it nothing. The world does not even owe it common courtesy. A civil society certainly values courtesy and consideration, but no person is inherently entitled to this.

To the world, to society, one’s feelings are absolutely insignificant and it is inflated self-indulgence to think otherwise. To ourselves and to our loved ones, feelings are valued and acknowledged, but do not in the least expect this from a complete stranger or society at large. They owe nothing to one’s subjectivity. Do not expect it, and if kind consideration does occur then it is a delightful privilege, not a right. As creatures of comfort we prefer the security of stasis, of the familiar. Life events may rend our emotions and throw us into storms. Inner tranquility is invaluable, but so is the ability to affirm chaotic passions.

The intellectual attempts to be purely rational or stoic; this is foolish, the passions are just as important as one’s thoughts. The hugbox attempts to keep the feelings safe, unchallenged, and as a result the soul is withered. The same can be said of the mind that goes unchallenged and coddled. A controlled narrow discourse that is intolerant of deviating positions, including the most radical and distasteful, is not free thought at all. It is passive and soft discursive totalitarianism.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:02 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:54 am
Greetings Coëmgenu,
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:44 am
Deliberately leaving opening a door to racist ideas, as if ideas can be separated from people who think then up (absurd!), certainly seems like an odd idea. Or perhaps it's based on the notion that proliferating an aggressive ideology on the internet isn't an "action" like assaulting someone would be. It's just a "harmless view".
I linked to this article before, but it seems opportune now to replicate it here...
Generation Hugbox
by Natasha Maria Phoenix

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle
I don't need alt-right propaganda complaining about the younguns.

Discussing racism has never been against the TOS. Deliberately leaving open a window for the posting of racist ideas is what I was referring to, not the discussion of racism itself.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20038
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:11 am

Greetings Coëmgenu,
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:02 am
I don't need alt-right propaganda complaining about the younguns.
It's interesting that "classic liberalism" is "alt-right propaganda" in your eyes... it only goes to show how things have changed over the years, I guess!
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:02 am
Discussing racism has never been against the TOS. Deliberately leaving open a window for the posting of racist ideas is what I was referring to, not the discussion of racism itself.
As you know, people cannot attack or discriminate against members based on race...
2f. Personal attacks, including the vilification of individuals based on any attributes - whether related to their personal attributes (e.g. gender, nationality, sexuality, race, age) or their approach to the Dhamma (e.g. their practices, level of experience, or chosen tradition)
... but I'll point the conversation once more to this topic and say...
Now, it would be all too easy for someone to declare that the content/ideas supporting Circle5's position are racist. Yet, if they are valid studies, are we going to start saying science is racist? If I brought forward a study showing that by normal distribution, men are physically stronger than women, is that content sexist or misogynistic? Should such views be prohibited? Should those who express them be banned?
If you choose political correctness or cultural Marxism over the pursuit of truth (whatever that truth might be, wherever that truth might lead) then that's for you, but we respect the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others to decide these things for themselves, and will not turn Dhamma Wheel into a "safe space", where preservation of feelings and attachments are prioritised over honesty, openness and the pursuit of the truth. If you want a "safe space" forum, I'm sure there are plenty of options available - alternatively, you're welcome to start your own.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:31 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:11 am
Greetings Coëmgenu,
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:02 am
I don't need alt-right propaganda complaining about the younguns.
It's interesting that "classic liberalism" is "alt-right propaganda" in your eyes... it only goes to show how things have changed over the years, I guess!
Not exactly. But you sound like Dr Peterson. He also uses this tactic of not owning up to being an alt-righter by using the ambiguous and highly anachronistic label of "Classical Liberal".
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:11 am
If you choose political correctness or cultural Marxism over the pursuit of truth
Can you precisely define "cultural Marxist" for us? :juggling:
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:32 am

I should call myself a "Classical Republican" to avoid honestly identifying myself as a liberal. :juggling:
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20038
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:49 am

Greetings Coëmgenu,
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:32 am
I should call myself a "Classical Republican" to avoid honestly identifying myself as a liberal. :juggling:
Sure, you can call yourself whatever you like Coëmgenu, and I hope you'll return the courtesy by not calling me "alt-right" in the future, as it's a description which is patently false with regards to my views, and is, from my perspective, "morally repugnant" to whatever extent you may be falsely implying that I'm "white supremacist".
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:32 am
Can you precisely define "cultural Marxist" for us?
The relevance of this to the topic is becoming rather tangential, but it's basically Marxism 2.0. Karl Marx's original Marxism which was founded on economic classifications and separated people based on economic parameters (i.e. the proletariat workers, and the bourgeoisie capital-class) and encouraged the lower classes to unite and overthrow the higher classes and bring on some kinda of economic utopia. Cultural Marxism separates people into different classes of privilege based on identity-based characteristics and encourages them to unite to revolt against those who are deemed to be more "privileged" than they. Just like economic Marxism, it's antagonistic, rooted in grievance-mongering, rooted in jealousy, identity and greed, is economically inefficient, is discriminatory, and doesn't incentivise people to be their best. Those who subscribe to such a theory are however more likely to define it as "progressivism" or if they're academically inclined, "critical race theory".

Contrast that ideology to the mode of operation here at Dhamma Wheel, where we endeavour to treat everyone equally under the Terms of Service, regardless of their identity classifications, political persuasions or their propensity for blurting out their discontent. If that model is unsatisfactory to you, then you're welcome to seek or create alternatives.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16426
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:55 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:49 am
Cultural Marxism separates people into different classes of privilege based on identity-based characteristics and encourages them to unite to revolt against those who are deemed to be more "privileged" than they. Just like economic Marxism, it's antagonistic, rooted in grievance-mongering, rooted in jealousy, identity and greed, is economically inefficient, is discriminatory, and doesn't incentivise people to be their best.
Interesting. I hear about this odd species from time to time on this Forum, and they certainly sound alarming, but I don't believe I've ever encountered one. Perhaps they are only exist in certain environments...

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:58 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:49 am
Greetings Coëmgenu,
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:32 am
I should call myself a "Classical Republican" to avoid honestly identifying myself as a liberal. :juggling:
Sure, you can call yourself whatever you like Coëmgenu, and I hope you'll return the courtesy by not calling me "alt-right" in the future, as it's a description which is patently false with regards to my views, and is, from my perspective, "morally repugnant" to whatever extent you may be falsely implying that I'm "white supremacist".
I'm very sorry, but IMO the term alt-righter is not synonymous with racist and is not a morally repugnant thing to be. I don't consider calling you one an insult, rather, an accurate summation of how you present yourself on this forum.

Now we've reached the impasse that Mr Man spoke about. You think it is morally reprehensible and "attacking" you to call you an alt-righter, perhaps presumably because you think being an alt-righter is something especially more wicked or frowned-upon than being an "SJW"? I do not.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests