*** Admin note: Please use a consistent user name from now on. Thanks! ***

Has anyone else noticed an increase in intolerance to other points of view in world society over the past year?

Rational debate on things that really matter seems to be largely shut down due to emotions and fear dominating all conversations. Sadly this forum is no exception, which is sad considering how ex-cult members ought to understand how important rational debate and openness to new ideas really is, since that's how they got out of the cult in many cases.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2021 01:58PM by Concrete Zipper.

My own experience here is that it's IRRATIONAL debate which is shut down, quite gently in my opinion, by the more rational among us who have mainly developed that rationality by leaving the cult. And as you give no examples, we can't know what you're referring to.

If you mean that, despite leaving the cult, they still don't agree with you, well...

Have a nice day :-D



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2021 03:17AM by Soft Machine.

Nicely put.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nicely put.

I agree.

I think one could infer the poster’s politics from the one year focus. There’s only one side that would say the debate has worsened over the last year.

I agree with Tom. People can deal with others who are grounded in reality, even if they have different views.

Dead on, Soft Machine!

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My own experience here is that it's IRRATIONAL
> debate which is shut down,

You think it is, but usually it isn't. It is usually a difference in opinion, especially when someone espouses extreme views and portrays them as normal. In one post (now deleted), one poster was making bizarre propositions like how teenagers could become parents to the elderly or why children should be raised by robots.

quite gently in my
> opinion,

The worse responses get deleted. One of the regular posters is pretty scatological when they wish to be or when they start losing an argument.

> by the more rational among us who have
> mainly developed that rationality by leaving the
> cult.

Leaving Mormonism doesn't make you rational. People leave for a variety of reasons, and some of the church hasn't left some of the self-identified "rational" posters.

Some of the Mormon traits such people retain include absolutist thinking, deference to authority (and believing everything it tells them), proselytizing for their new belief system(s), believing that they are on the true path and that anyone against them is "of the Devil" (metaphorically).

> And as you give no examples, we can't know
> what you're referring to.

Maybe s/he doesn't want people ranting about the same subjects against?

The times now remind me of all the tension in the late 60’s. It seems to go in cycles.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The times now remind me of all the tension in the
> late 60’s. It seems to go in cycles.

I would say early seventies more so, when that period turned dark.

But it was a much more creative time and some of the people back then wished to break down categories, not reinforce them.

Nowadays there are differences. Big money is being poured into activism and some of today's supposed rebels encourage censorship of expression and obedience to the authorities (who will sort out everything.)

My experience, over many more years than just the last, is that those who claim the mantle of “rationality” the hardest are the least rational of any bunch. You’ll find that type in any group, on any issue, and my guess is in any place, including here.

+1

And, I see a lot of those draping themselves in the rationality mantle also appoint themselves judge and jury as well.

I would say that society has changed in the last few years, equity is on everyone's minds lately, millennials and generation z are more open to listening to being aware of other points of view. As a millennial I've been trying lately to get schooled better in what other peoples points of view. I've been reading the book 'White Fragility' which is all about how certain people (white males) have privilege and others (blacks) are the victims.

Here is a fascinating quote about 'intolerance/racism' from the perspective of the author (A middle aged white women on the Left)
"I'm often asked if the younger generation is less racist, No I don't. In some ways racisms adaption is more sinister than concrete rules such as Jim Crow. (p50)"

I think she is right, society is listening and pretending to make changes especially when they think they can profit from them, but mostly everyone is about as intolerant as the older generations. The difference is that before the 1960s people said what was on their minds they didn't care about peoples feelings. Now we pretend to be nice.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say that society has changed in the last
> few years, equity is on everyone's minds lately,
> millennials and generation z are more open to
> listening to being aware of other points of view.
> As a millennial I've been trying lately to get
> schooled better in what other peoples points of
> view. I've been reading the book 'White Fragility'
> which is all about how certain people (white
> males) have privilege and others (blacks) are the
> victims.

That book is a political tract and should not be taken as scientific. The author comes from a wealthy background and it shows in her bizarre notions of what privilege is.

Because she is rich her analysis should be discounted? No, that's an ad hominem!

Yes that's all probably very true, it's filled with unsubstantiated ideas and "arguments without arguments" as Thomas Sowell would say. But it's certainly influenced the current direction our social society has taken in the last 3 or so years. We have our victims and our oppressors supposedly dishing out the intolerance, and the bigotry.

My own experience is that you simply villainize and name call people who have different points of view other than your own and censor out anything they have to say, without considering the actual arguments. That is no different than what the Mormon church does, as they are ad hominem attacks judging your opponents as somehow crazy without looking at their arguments which is a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"My own experience is that you simply villainize and name call people who have different points of view other than your own and censor out anything they have to say, without considering the actual arguments. That is no different than what the Mormon church does, as they are ad hominem attacks judging your opponents as somehow crazy without looking at their arguments which is a logical fallacy."

RESPONSE: There is an important distinction between a fallacious "ad hominem" attack, and an ad hominem attack that is not fallacious. Here it is:

If you dismiss your opponent's argument on the basis of a *prior* judgment that they are "crazy," that is a fallacious ad hominem attack. In that case, the argument should stand on its own irrespective of who is making the argument, and that is where the fallaciousness of the attack lies.

On the other hand, if someone considers their opponent's argument and adjudges the argument false, *and then* concludes that the person making such an argument must be crazy, ignorant or stupid that is NOT fallacious. It may be rhetorical, rude and impolite (as we have seen on the board), but that alone does not make it fallacious. In that case, the argument *was* considered on the merits, and the conclusion about the person making the argument was merely an afterthought after determining-rightly or wrongly--that the argument was absurd on the merits.

Here on RfM, we rarely see fallacious ad hominem attacks. They are usually of the second kind. The problem with them (if I can presume to represent CZ) is that they are not only inconsiderate and rude in a forum where civility is valued, they distract from the conversation.

Oh yeah..the fools are crawling out from under their rocks to protest and hurl insults.

You lost me when you lumped ex-Mormons into one group. They should all act alike now because of a few shared experiences? One path outta Mormonism? And all roads should lead to thinking like you?

D&D, like Human, as blankety-blank-blank as they come.

Thanks for the Ad Hominem definition. I am sure none of us here had ever heard of it before. :)

Hey, I just want to be part of the best-looking crowd!

I'm with whichever side gives me the most 'likes'!!

It isn’t intolerance, it is more like full support of the approved narrative.

Anything said that doesn’t testify to the common correct thinking is simply cast as apostasy and shunned.

Aligned thought reduces bickering, it seems.

No one's shut you guys up. Your news channel is "the" mainstream channel, with more viewers than any of the others. There are innumerable discussion boards that cater to you and yours.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one's shut you guys up.

No one said you did.



Your news channel is
> "the" mainstream channel, with more viewers than
> any of the others.

I don’t have a news channel. Viewer count doesn’t measure truthyness, does it?


There are innumerable
> discussion boards that cater to you and yours.

So, as I mentioned, discussions that do not conform to the popular narrative are shown the door.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lot's Wife Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No one's shut you guys up.
>
> No one said you did.

I didn't say "I" did. I blush at the compliment but I'm really not that powerful.



--------------
> Your news channel is
> > "the" mainstream channel, with more viewers
> than
> > any of the others.
>
> I don’t have a news channel. Viewer count
> doesn’t measure truthyness, does it?

Why yes, it does. "Truthiness" is that which feels true regardless of whether it is. The prominence of Fox and other conspiracy networks is proof of the truthiness of the COVID hoax and the election theft canard. For truth is a function of numbers, is it not? I mean, it was until your side lost the election--and now you are back to the snowflake theory that you are being oppressed because others won't recognize the truthiness of your collective delusions.

"Truthiness" is also belief and action based on emotional impulse rather than on any objective standard--as you demonstrated the other day when you presented an objective basis for your distrust of the vaccines and, when that basis was vitiated, announced that evidence doesn't really matter after all. Belief and action based on emotion are truthy, as we all learned in the Mormon church.


------------
> There are innumerable
> > discussion boards that cater to you and yours.
>
> So, as I mentioned, discussions that do not
> conform to the popular narrative are shown the
> door.

What you don't seem to understand is that refusing to adopt truthiness as a basis for belief and action is not censorship. To the contrary, that refusal is an insistence on truth as manifested in evidence. No community is morally obligated to embrace unfounded and destructive fables just because some people find those fables comforting.

You see?
That’s where you lose me.

Your responses make assumptions about me, who I am, what I believe, who I voted for, what news channel I watch.

I never stated any of those things. Yet, here we are.

You do NOT know these things.

You assume by inference.

You surely don’t develop a worldview of truth by assuming, do you?

Popular narrative - black.

Any words that could be construed as not supportive of the groupthink - white.

I get it.

You are right that I may have made incorrect assumptions about you, particularly about the details. But I have seen on many occasions you reach conclusions based on emotion rather than fact, and you have provided plenty of evidence that you ascribe to some of the delusions of the Trumpian movement.

If I am wrong, set me straight. Do you accept that the risk of death from the vaccines is roughly 1/10,000 of the risk from COVID? Do you accept that Trump was defeated at the polls?

That's where the rubber meets the road.

The need to pigeonhole and label is irresistible, no?

Suffice it to say, I do not fit in a category. Never have.

It does seem to greatly disturb some folks.

I’m kind of bothered by the edict that reduces emotion to insignificance. Emotion can coexist with truth, IMO. After all, isn’t it emotionally satisfying to know that one is aligned with the groupthink?

Emotion is what spices the melting pot. Without it we are robotic and boring.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2021 04:53PM by csuprovograd.

Emotion is for the bedroom but not for rational discourse. It leads away from truth more often than not.

As for my misunderstanding you, please answer my questions so I can learn something. If you don’t, then I must assume that I am pretty close to the mark.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After all, isn’t it emotionally
> satisfying to know that one is aligned with the
> groupthink?

Hah. My views have been consistent for years, even decades. I am probably the most reviled participant on this board for the simple reason that I have next to zero need to be approved by the group.

>
> Hah. My views have been consistent for years,
> even decades.

Congratulations. I am open to revised thinking when presented with cogent information.

I am probably the most reviled
> participant on this board for the simple reason
> that I have next to zero need to be approved by
> the group.

Again, congratulations. Not to put an emotional spin on it, but I detect a certain pride in being reviled.

Indeed, one might conclude your enthusiasm in quashing any deviation from your own worldview based on the sheer volume of posts you produce borders on obsession.

I interpret that as meaning that you do not intend to answer the questions I posed.

It is huge just now. One of the worst lots are certain members of the younger generations* who have been trained to believe they are somehow the most moral and tolerant... The catch is that it has to be their version of morality and tolerance and no other views are allowed.

They struggle a lot with the viewpoints of people in history, and even a few decsdes ago. And despite their supposed tolerance, they can be very ageist and classist. They will say poor people are privileged with no sense of irony. They will also attack the elderly or people who vote a different way.

I do blame social media, which I think deliberately isolates groups from one another.

* Note I say "certain", because many are not. I hope this is a passing thing - young and old have fought from the beginning of time, but since the 1950s this process has accelerated and those who have grown up in the last twenty or so years are especiallt bad.

Your logic--that the views of older generations and the dead should be taken seriously--makes a lot of sense to me. I presume you recognize that means the cancellation of African American and Native American suffering, imposed by subsequent interested generations, must end. Because there is no cancellation in North America more egregious than that enacted by white Americans over the last two+ centuries.

Bravo.

csuprovo suggested that I enjoy being the skunk at the party. The answer is that I do not. I have been active at this site for over a decade and only became assertive in 2016. The reason is that the debate took a turn towards the dangerous.

The bulk--nay, near the full contingent--of participants here are white people from the Morridor. The board is frankly not hospitable to people who are of minority ethnicity, wholly or partly, as well as to those who love non-white and non-American individuals. The assumptions behind many posts are, intentionally but more often obliviously, offensive to those people. So with rare exception those out-of-the-mold people don't stay around, which is unfortunate for a place dedicated to helping those trying to leave the LDS faith.

From 2016 onward, however, the problem became more acute. The United States divided into those who were comfortable with the constitution as interpreted by the courts and those who wanted to impose all sorts of ethnicity-based walls, barriers, and restrictions. That may have been an academic debate for the majority of posters here but it was a direct threat to the liberties and, through rhetorically excesses, the personal safety of those who don't fit the Morridor mold.

For us these are matters of life and death. I understand why arguing against the COVID falsehoods, the election lies, and the attempts to minimize and excuse what happened on January 6 might bother those who embrace those ideas. But it is unreasonable of the adherents of those theories to expect the rest of us to go silently into the night. Truth matters; facts matter; and history is full of examples of false ideologies resulting in immense human suffering.

Emotion is not a guide to truth. It is more often a guide to behavioral excess and, sometimes, to bloodshed.

very true, that's something I've noticed too that the:

"The board is frankly not hospitable to people who are of minority ethnicity, wholly or partly, as well as to those who love non-white and non-American individuals."

I suppose the board is a reflection of society as a whole, we're intellectually fascinated with peoples lives, but clueless as to know what to do about the situation.

One more quote from this book I'm reading that goes along with this from "white Fragility"... by the author (a self pro claimed progressive)

"White Progressives cause most of the daily damage to people of color" (p 5) she doesn't explain or give a solution in the book to this progressive problem that I can find. Perhaps it has something to do with pride and virtue signaling, helping people for the wrong reasons, being nice for the wrong reasons.

What about beautiful blonde women married to black men?

"Your logic--that the views of older generations and the dead should be taken seriously--makes a lot of sense to me. I presume you recognize that means the cancellation of African American and Native American suffering, imposed by subsequent interested generations, must end. Because there is no cancellation in North America more egregious than that enacted by white Americans over the last two+ centuries."

While slavery was evil, can you give any credit to White Americans for ending slavery? Given that it has been practiced the world over for thousands of years, by every race. Western civilization was the first to question its morality.

You might watch this excerpt from book by the black scholar Thomas Sowell called "Facts about Slavery they Don't Teach in School".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY&t=336s

I was unloading a truck the other day with a black man who came from Kenya 5 years ago. I didn't ask many questions, but wondered why he would want to leave the utopia of Africa to experience this country with its systemic racism and oppression with every white man now considered to be a white supremacist.

Free Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While slavery was evil, can you give any credit to
> White Americans for ending slavery?

Yes. Lincoln and Sewell and hundreds of thousands of troops and others played major roles in abolition. Their achievements do not require my applause although they absolutely have it. The tragedy was that Lincoln in particular died before he could consolidate those feats.


----------------
> Given that
> it has been practiced the world over for thousands
> of years, by every race.

Untrue. Slavery was practiced by lots of civilization but by no means was it all. Furthermore, there is a difference between slavery as practiced in most of those times and places and chattels slavery, which is what happened in the US and parts of Europe. That was a uniquely invidious practice.


----------------
> Western civilization
> was the first to question its morality.

It makes sense that only Western civilization would question the morality of chattels slavery since those were the other countries that had that institution. As for less horrific versions of slavery, yes, there were civilizations that abolished them independently of the West. That includes China and Israel but there are others as well.



----------------
> You might watch this excerpt from book by the
> black scholar Thomas Sowell called "Facts about
> Slavery they Don't Teach in School".
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY&t=336s

Yeah, there are lots of aspects of slavery that are not taught in school--obviously including the definition of chattels slavery, the role of slavery in the formation of the constitution, etc. What I have previously read of Sowell does not, for some reason, touch upon those.



--------------
> I was unloading a truck the other day with a black
> man who came from Kenya 5 years ago. I didn't
> ask many questions, but wondered why he would want
> to leave the utopia of Africa to experience this
> country with its systemic racism and oppression
> with every white man now considered to be a white
> supremacist.

Not all "white men [are] now considered to be white supremacist[s]." The vast majority of Caucasian Americans are not white supremacists.

As for why Africans might come to the States, your logic is backwards. Equality is enshrined in the constitution and in Lincoln's speeches as much for white Americans as for the slaves and their descendants. Treating other humans as subhuman corrodes the souls of the majority as assuredly as the minority.

That nuance seems increasing lost nowadays.

"Treating other humans as subhuman corrodes the souls of the majority as assuredly as the minority."

This. Thanks, LW.

Agreed. Well put. One only has to look at Hitler's Germany to see a living example

The internet is not helping this. Both sides of anything appear to get attention when they are not equal factually. The biggest megaphone or repetition does not mean something is necessarily being presented truthfully.

If an alien saw the internet, he would assume astrology is equal to astronomy to stupid humans.

You gave me the thought that social media has robbed many/most of being able to see things from a distance. The world is smaller than ever. Impossible any more to stand back and get a true perspective---like an Alien perhaps could.

But even their Gods don't have a distanced perspective, so what you going to do?

If you mean an increase in the intolerance of: lying, gas-lighting, fear-mongering, hatred of fellow humans, and anti-science assertions; then, I hope so! Good for us if that is the case. More people should be less tolerant of the evils other people do.

HH =)

What you are saying is all true qwewe. I have quit posting here because of it. There are a few it seems that have nothing else to do other than dominate these discussions. I tried to challenge their mistaken views on a few occasions (I am convinced I was winning most of the debates with them) and was deleted or on one occasion got no response, perhaps because they had none. My advice to you is don't try to have any meaningful discussion here.
Now watch them jump in and attack me. Lot's wife is likely to lead the pack.

    Nobody likes having their pet oxen gored.

This is a well-known truth.

So most people take their pet ox to pastures where their oxen can play with like-minded oxen.

I taught my pet ox how to call for an Uber, so he roams freely now.

I think PETA should look into people who constantly push their pet oxen into pastures where they always end up in a fight.