AZJoe
Member

I kinda doubt that, it appears to me to be more of a "body positive" kind of message. I could just be jaded on the whole thing though. I'm much less inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt than I used to be.

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1641560570611617793

//

"All remaining airports close" ... https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1641825660984279041

https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1641610776145166336

THREAD: Repressive Tolerance https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1641610776145166336

https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1641600656082456577

How the Woke Fail the Paradox of Tolerance The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 21 (11 February 2021) In 1945, even as the Nazis fell from power, Karl Popper told us how to find the line where free, liberal societies are in imminent danger in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, most simply summarizing a crucial part of the argument in a short footnote about “The Paradox of Tolerance.” There, Popper lays out a short summary of when a free society should and must not tolerate intolerant movements if it is to survive. It is not only when they espouse and preach intolerance but when they also cease to be amenable to reason and rational debate, forbid their followers from listening to reason and rational debate, cannot be held in check by public opinion, and encourage their followers to respond to arguments with “fists or pistols,” i.e., violence of some form or another. I contend that the Woke, uniquely, have crossed this line in this episode of the New Discourses Podcast. They are absolutely intolerant, will not debate or listen to alternative perspectives, and, unlike all other hate movements that fail those two criteria, have grown to be completely unchecked and uncheckable by public opinion. This places them outside of the range to which tolerance should be extended in free, open societies, and it identifies them uniquely as a threat to their continuance. Join me to hear my argument for how Karl Popper warned us in 1945 so that we might see this situation when it arose. For more on the idea of tolerance, check out the entry on “tolerance” in my Critical Social Justice Encyclopedia and check out the four-part series on Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” on the New Discourses podcast. https://odysee.com/@newdiscourses:9/how-the-woke-fail-the-paradox-of:4 @newdiscourses:9/how-the-woke-fail-the-paradox-of:4

Critical Theorists as Grand Inquisitors: The Logic of "Repressive Tolerance" The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 20 (08 February 2021) Repressive Tolerance Series, Part 4 of 4 In this fourth and final part of his four-part lecture series about “Repressive Tolerance,” James Lindsay takes the reader from the darkest point of the essay, which was the exciting climax of Part 3, through the end of Marcuse’s argument. In this part, Marcuse dedicates the rest of the original 1965 essay to explaining why it is him and people like him (that is, Critical Theorists) who get to decide what constitutes good violence and bad violence, truth and falsity, liberating tolerance from the kind that must not be tolerated and must be suppressed. In our own time, it is the Woke and the high-powered elites in government, media, education, and law who have taken up this mantle of being able to decide, in the spirit of Herbert Marcuse, what must be tolerated, no matter how bad it is, and what must be suppressed, no matter how legitimate it is. The parallels to our own time are undeniable, and, as Lindsay has claimed throughout, the unavoidable conclusion is that we live in the asymmetric and totalitarian logic of “Repressive Tolerance” today. The second half of this episode leaves the essay itself and dives into a postscript to the original essay that Marcuse added three years later, in 1968, after the logic of his essay had already caused innumerable riots and episodes of civil unrest at the end of that tumultuous and transformational decade. In exploring this postscript, we see Marcuse sticking to his guns, but we also see just how blatantly obvious it is that his repressive tolerance has become the monster it sought to slay, which sheds considerable light upon what some people are now calling “the Great Realignment” in our societies, cultures, and politics. https://odysee.com/@newdiscourses:9/critical-theorists-as-grand-inquisitors:4

Repressive Tolerance: Left Good, Right Bad, What Could Go Wrong? The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 19 (03 February 2021) Repressive Tolerance Series, Part 3 of 4 In this third part of James Lindsay’s lecture series on Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance,” we see how the essay takes a particularly dark turn. Having set up the framing of the essay in the first part and explaining the condition of the “administered society” in the second, Marcuse now turns to answering the question of what a Repressive Tolerance should look like, including what it must suppress and what it must tolerate, including the sorts of violence and extralegal behaviors it must tolerate. The statement, which we arrive at near the end of this part, is simple, in Marcuse’s own words: “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.” In this part of the lecture series, Lindsay walks the listener through the darker part of Marcuse’s argument to show how he arrives at this blatantly biased and ridiculous conclusion that has set the stage for the totalitarianism we see today in Wokeness and from Big Tech. https://odysee.com/@newdiscourses:9/repressive-tolerance-left-good,-right:a @newdiscourses:9/repressive-tolerance-left-good,-right:a

One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill: Herbert Marcuse and the Administered Society The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 18 (29 January 2021) Repressive Tolerance Series, Part 2 of 4 In this second part of his annotated reading of Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance,” James Lindsay reads and explains the portion of the essay where Marcuse defines the “administered society” that he claims we live in. The listener will find striking parallels to today’s world, which certainly qualifies as the type of “administered society” far more accurately than the world that Marcuse inhabited in the 1960s when he wrote the essay, but paradoxically, or ironically, because it adopts the logic of this very essay as justification for its administration! This part of the series, then, raises particularly interesting questions about whether or not Marcuse would support the fruits of his own work and thus sheds interesting light on the problem we currently find ourselves in. It sets the stage for answering at the end of the series how we might go about solving this problem while avoiding the mistake Marcuse plainly made. https://odysee.com/@newdiscourses:9/one-pill,-two-pill,-red-pill,-blue-pill:c @newdiscourses:9/one-pill,-two-pill,-red-pill,-blue-pill:c

How Not to Resolve the Paradox of Tolerance The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 17 (26 January 2021) Repressive Tolerance Series, Part 1 of 4 We live in a crazy world today that seems to have gone off the rails. That’s because it is being driven by a broken logic, and, for all the flaws on the right, that broken logic is centered in the no-longer-tolerant left. The logic of the left today is overwhelmingly rooted in a single essay published in 1965 by the neo-Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse. That essay is “Repressive Tolerance.” The thesis statement of this essay can be boiled down to “movements from the left must be extended tolerance, even when they are violent, while movements from the right must not be tolerated, including suppressing them by violence.” This asymmetric ethic has been the heart and soul of left politics in the West since the 1960s, and we’re living in the fruit of that catastrophe now. To help people understand this vitally important and intrinsically totalitarian essay and its relevance to our present moment, James Lindsay walks the listener through Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” in a four-part lecture series. In this series, he reads the essay in full and attempts to make clear how it is the logic underlying the present moment. The goal is to explain the essay as Marcuse would have understood it, in his own context, and to show how his own logic has become dominant and the monster that he believed he was fighting. In the first part, Lindsay begins by framing the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory to give background on Marcuse. He also explains that Marcuse seems to be attempting to give a solution to Karl Popper’s famous “Paradox of Tolerance,” which was provided as an aside in his 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies, which analyzed how fascism can arise and overtake liberal societies. Marcuse’s answer to this conundrum is that a “discriminating tolerance,” a “liberating tolerance,” must be practiced that offers favoritism to the left and actively suppresses the right, as he defines them (from a perspective of Critical Theory).

1641994200496603137

1641934725525696514

Someone is finally doing something about the (transphobic) weather: https://twitter.com/NWS/status/1641774592699035648

https://twitter.com/RAZ0RFIST/status/1641876204235145216

Don't forget the value of our currency.

//

Rand Paul Blocks Authoritarian “Anti-TikTok” Bill. Plus: Darren Beattie on Douglass Mackey Guilty Verdict, Trump Indictment | SYSTEM UPDATE #64 https://rumble.com/v2fobi0--system-update-64.html v2d2w0g

1641952663318265856

CLIPS from SYSTEM UPDATE #63: Trump Indicted: Democrats' Latest Authoritarian Play to Prevent His Reelection | SYSTEM UPDATE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBtLLVTbO1c From Nixon to Trump: When—if ever—should former presidents be prosecuted? | SYSTEM UPDATE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GAc_Uj2eLM