Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I want to live in a culture where I can build alongside people who share my values. That certainly does not preclude sharing that broader culture with others who have radically different values; I have not told my political opponents I don't wish to share a country with them, nor would I. I'm perfectly happy to share countries and forums alike with people I have wide-ranging disagreements with. Yes, it's horrifying when your tribe demonstrates adherence to values you didn't anticipate and that feel like a repudiation of your expectations! That doesn't entail wanting them to leave your country! The very comment you link emphasizes not writing them off and being happy to bury the hatchet.
It's risible to compare a sentiment of wanting to build alongside people who want to build alongside you to one of telling people you don't want them in your country. Nobody should struggle to tell the difference.
As for your participation in my spheres, I appreciate many of your contributions and am happy for people to participate where they'd like. Participate if you want, don't if you don't want. The whole point of planting a flag and letting people find it or not as they will is allowing people like you to decide whether what's under that flag is worthwhile enough to spend time around.
Yes, I've edited to note you find a big distinction between just feeling betrayed by people voting for someone you hate, and not wanting to share a country or be ruled by "Would they have killed him? From a probabilistic standpoint, I'd give it maybe 1-2% odds at most assuming he was passive/compliant."
There's an obvious difference, but as always the problem is and remains why the distinction matters. Clearly you care, and there's no small number of people who feel very strongly the exact opposite direction. I'm willing and happy to engage, to the extent that I'm allowed to engage, with questions like that at TheSchism if there's a chance of exploring the deeper disagreement.
This discussion, and that you find the current state of the subreddit a success, sounds very much like that's not the point of "the thoughtful discussion space" you hoped theschism would be.
"Share a country" and "be ruled by" are very different sentiments as well. The first is saying something very close to "I don't want you anywhere in any community I could conceivably be physically present in." It's a huge deal to say to someone and mean, particularly over a single hastily dashed out political stance, and it's not like he was saying it about specifically what I was trying to articulate about that scenario. He was saying it about me as a whole, and I think people absolutely should take it seriously if others say it to them. Be ruled by? Sure, nobody wants to be ruled by those they have deep-running disagreements with. That's not the same as sharing a country.
Crucially to the point here: a discussion space like this is much smaller and more personal than a country. If people in a small discussion space can't abide the idea of so much as sharing a country with you, it would be madness to put effort into sharing anything smaller than that with them. If someone both doesn't want to share a country with me and wants to write aiming to persuade others that they shouldn't, either, there's no turning around with a "but we're still cool, right?"
No. Words have meaning. That's about as emphatic a denunciation as someone can provide. If you do not want to share so much as a country with me, then you will at most be someone I occasionally argue with on the internet--nothing more--and my commentary about you will reflect that.
I think people should take it seriously when those on a pathway to a position of power suggest people should -- just morally, not legally -- accept a couple percentage point risks of death rather than be capable of defending themselves against an illegal assault, and accept ejection from public fora before either.
Yeah, I'd gotten the feeling that's how things were going. I'd hoped for a different answer to the naive experiment, but if the answer is "The friend-enemy distinction matters", Litany of Tarski go.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link