"Tolerance is only truly tolerance by becoming intolerant. We see it also where freedom is only truly free if you limit freedom (for certain people at least), democracy is only truly democratic when the people with the wrong ideas are disenfranchised" -- James Lindsay on Critical Theory

submitted by Chipit from youtu.be

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]thefirststone 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I found the full text of "Repressive Tolerance" that he's paraphrasing at that timecode.

Seems very relevant to our times in the most depressing ways. Reminder that this was 1965:

Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives. And to the degree to which freedom of thought involves the struggle against inhumanity, restoration of such freedom would also imply intolerance toward scientific research in the interest of deadly 'deterrents', of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions, etc. I shall presently discuss the question as to who is to decide on the distinction between liberating and repressive, human and inhuman teachings and practices; I have already suggested that this distinction is not a matter of value-preference but of rational criteria.

[...]

I suggested that the distinction between true and false tolerance, between progress and regression can be made rationally on empirical grounds. The real possibilities of human freedom are relative to the attained stage of civilization.

A very scientific revolution, a very rational and empirical progress. Nothing new, of course. This type of shit was popular everywhere fifty years prior. But this guy sure did put words in some mouths.

It's just a blueprint for revolution. The "alchemical thinking" analogy is fairly apt, but I think if you disentangled goals and methods, which these people conflate purposefully to confuse and play their shifting-meaning word games, then it would be more obvious this is all an emotional manipulation script for taskmaster narcissists to feed to their low-impulse control proles.

Maybe the podcast makes that point, I don't know. Three and a half hours is a lot.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It took me several weeks to watch it all. It was totally worth it, though. I understand CRT a lot better now. It's like a religion, but there are several denominations. They're not all the same and they don't believe in the same thing. And yes, the ones called wokists absolutely do intend to destroy our culture through a cultural revolution. They believe once they do, all the roadblocks in the way of utopia will have been removed and the end of history will arrive. It's why they hate us so much - they think we know this and are actively trying to stop the best possible world from coming to pass.

History shows us they're real good at the "tearing society down" part but what comes after is a dystopia. China is still paying the price for their cultural revolution over 50 years later.

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Basically I agree.

The problem - the variable external to the pure societal philosophy - is technology. With each wave, the people manipulating these tendencies in human nature (which are basically envy and paranoia) have greater technologies with which to concentrate their hatred and enforce their control.

My fear is that with this go round, the "insanity x technology" combination may be powerful enough we are going to find human life impossible to continue. It's not the way I thought human extinction would look, but seeing it happen, maybe it makes sense this is the human tendency to demonstrate itself incompatible with evolution.

Let's hope that at some point enough people see this for what it is, and we can go back to a more sustainable track for our species.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. The communists exterminated tens of millions with nothing more than paper and pencil. Imagine what they could have done with big data.

[–]thefirststone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's very demoralizing.