It brings to mind Marcuse's "repressive tolerance". It's gotten to the point where they are just inventing theories to convince themselves that there is still a difference between them and the far left.
Anti-Liberal Liberals obviously exist and have some conceptual confusion to sort out, but it seems they are more likely to continue making the label Liberalism meaningless.
Per Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
I’m removing this comment because it’s completely unresponsive to the post, which says nothing like what the commentor claims. This is not the forum for repetitively posting your own views.
Your argument had nothing to do with the post, which recounted an academic paper making a “liberal and rights-based” argument for no-platforming. Again, this is not a forum for your unrelated views.
You made me laugh out loud: “I suspect this is the future of liberalism”, hilarious.
“As for forms of governance let fools contest : whatever’s best administered is best.”
Alexander Pope
We are lost, imploding.
"like a glove" indeed. Synchronicity doesn't come any better.
It brings to mind Marcuse's "repressive tolerance". It's gotten to the point where they are just inventing theories to convince themselves that there is still a difference between them and the far left.
Anti-Liberal Liberals obviously exist and have some conceptual confusion to sort out, but it seems they are more likely to continue making the label Liberalism meaningless.
I don’t know whether or not they are confused, but I believe that they will certainly continue to make the label meaningless!
So funny! You brightened my day!
"...forces that all subscribe to fundamental liberal premises, yet interpret them differently."
I take "fundamental liberal premises" at this point are all "id". The more id the more progressive. Extra id assists extra interpretation.
"It is a conflict between free speech and free speech.” Somewhere Orwell is smiling.
Per Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
So incoherence is now considered a natural concomitant of rational dialogue.
I’m removing this comment because it’s completely unresponsive to the post, which says nothing like what the commentor claims. This is not the forum for repetitively posting your own views.
Your argument had nothing to do with the post, which recounted an academic paper making a “liberal and rights-based” argument for no-platforming. Again, this is not a forum for your unrelated views.