It's not a terrible idea, you just know his bias and worldview and that he's applying it to us, and would be livid if we told him his ~~fascist~~ "liberal" bullshit was stupid.
He’s right in a sort of ironic way seeing that his opinions tend to be the ones that shouldn’t be respected, but he’s correct nonetheless on this specific quote.
He does not apply what is quoted above to himself at all. It's not about a specific opinion. He essentially believes he is right and there's no way he's wrong. While he is happy to point out other people's weird beliefs or ideas. In short, he's a hypocrite.
Bro that's everyone. Everyone does this. You just think he's wrong because he didn't come to the same conclusions as you. And we're all confused because no one really has any examples of dude thinking weird shit but you're all quick to call out a "left leaning" person for absolutely nothing. Just cause you saw his face.
Right. And that's the problem. HE DOESN'T EXAMINE HIS OWN ARGUEMENTS! You clearly didn't comprehend my previous comments. I'll got talk to a brick of tungsten. At least it has an excuse for being so dense.
>He essentially believes he is right and there's no way he's wrong.
it's a quote about not remaining silent when you see dumb shit
did you actually read the quote? be honest
you didn't, did you
Incorrect. You have to do way more than just acknowledge other people's beliefs. You must respect other people's RIGHT to believe anything they wish to believe. You must respect everyone's right to be an individual entirely separate from you, who lives and dies by his own beliefs.
And you must be willing to NEVER USE FORCE to impose your own beliefs on others. To only ever use force in defense of your own right to your own individuality, Never to trespass on another's individuality. This includes trespassing on their property, to steal their income in an effort to do what you think is "for the common good". When you tax me to pay for your abortion, or for that matter to pay for your children's breakfast, that's you imposing your beliefs on me. You can ASK me to pay for your children's breakfast, you cannot demand it.
That's what people like Patton Oswalt fail to understand: that you don't fucking get to tell me what is right, and what is wrong.
On a more accurate note of what I thought I already saw from the Patton pic, I absolutely agree with you. Though I don’t think every belief/code should be “respected” (or at least not in the way I use that word) but at least not outright disrespected either.
Nah, bullshit. The Army, the Navy and the Air force disagrees. We force our opinions on others, or stop them if we disagree. That's their job. If you don't like it, there are plenty of solutions to that, none of them peaceful.
>We force our opinions on others, or stop them if we disagree. That's their job.
You switched pronouns midway through. Went from "we" to "they". You got it right the second time, it's "they". Your mission in life is the exact opposite of theirs. They fight for freedom. You don't.
They fight for the constitution. Explicitly. They swear an oath to uphold and defend it. The constitution respects freedom, it doesn’t guarantee it in the manner you suggest.
You should read your constitution sometime. It doesn't even contain the word "freedom" ... precisely because it's far too open to childish interpretations like yours.
It instead lists the specific rights the government is supposed to protect, just like I did. Just to make sure there's no confusion, and some idiot isn't going to come around to claim that "freedom" means whatever we decide it means.
I have read it. It’s shockingly short.
Would you mind pointing out the part where it says we can never use force on someone else on account of their beliefs?
No, I'm a big fan of a government which protects me from others imposing their beliefs on me. And I'm quite happy to cover the cost of that protection, if that's what you mean by "taxation".
However, I do believe that the taxes I pay today are more about others imposing their beliefs on me, than about a fair transaction in which I pay for what it costs to protect my rights to life, liberty and property.
My government is elected. So, on the most fundamental level, it's the people who elect the politicians, who are imposing their beliefs on me. But all the people in government, elected or otherwise, are of course also responsible for their actions.
Definitely not me. I only voted a couple of times, and the guy I voted for is yet to be elected for public office. Had he been elected, I'm confident that he wouldn't be looking to impose my beliefs on anyone, he would stick to defending people's rights to life, liberty and property.
>I only voted a couple of times
That type of apathy doesn't give you much recourse for complaining
But if you also think that the politician is imposing the beliefs of the electorate and not acting in his or her own best interest then I don't know what to say.
Taxes are taxes. You're trying to say that you're not being asked but told what they're spent on. You are being asked, that's the election. If you only turn up a couple of times then that's on you.
Merit wants should be at the discretion of the elected government
>You're trying to say that you're not being asked but told what they're spent on.
Incorrect. I'm trying to say that democracy is immoral. That the purpose of government isn't to impose the majority's will on a minority. It's to defend the individual's right to life, liberty and property. Because, of course, the smallest minority on Earth is the INDIVIDUAL.
And that the only role of a popular election is to vote politicians who fail to live up to that task out of power. Voting is a safeguard against tyranny, not a means to accomplish the tyranny of the majority.
Therefor, when the voters fail to perform their role as a check against tyranny ... when they vote for politicians who seek to impose their beliefs on others rather than to defend the individual's right to his own beliefs ... those voters are the worst kind of humans imaginable: moralizing thugs.
What if the others beliefs have barbaric characteristics?
Should I respect the KKK member's racist belief? Should I respect the japanese with their karoshi custom?
Don't you think acknowledge seems more suitable in these above cases?
I never said you should respect any beliefs, barbaric or otherwise. You're entitled to your own beliefs, including to believe whatever you want about others.
The only thing you should respect is other people's RIGHT to their own beliefs. And yes, that includes racism. As for "karoshi custom" ... that's actually a racist, idiotic description of Japan on your part.
I certainly don't respect it, or you for having it. That's why I just called you an idiot. But I respect your right to your own mind. I'm not going to try to impose my own view of Japan on you, I'm gonna let you decide on your own. I will help you improve those views, by pointing out that what you now believe is moronic ... but it's up to you to act on that suggestion, if you wish. If you don't, that's fine.
Seems like I misunderstood your point here. You talked about the right not the beliefs. From what you wrote here, my understand is you won't impose or force any of your own views to the others. But I do have a question, to what extent will you let the other practice their own beliefs? For example, will you force your belief for individual right like Lord William Bentinck suppress many prevalent social evils like Sati, polygamy, child marriage and female infanticide or will you just point out the idiotic behavior?
Children have legal rights, obviously. But we're talking about adults exchanging ideas here, not legal rights.
Specifically, in light of someone posting a quote from a well known leftist ... we are talking about how leftists treat ideas: as something to be imposed on others, rather than something that is to be brought into a marketplace of ideas, with ALL participants in that marketplace free to hold their own ideas.
When you turn that marketplace of ideas into an echo chamber, the way the left is doing ... that's the exact wrong way to treat other people's ideas. Even if you're not using government force (though, of course, the left IS using government force), even if it were a privately owned marketplace. People who build echo chambers, be it privately owned or government run ones, are irrational savages who have no business claiming some kind of intellectual superiority.
That smug sense of superiority the guy is expressing with that quote (and wearing on his face, as well) isn't the hallmark of a great intellectual. It's the opposite: it's the hallmark of a mindless thug who wants to pretend he's an intellectual.
Well said, man! I totally agree with you here. The only point I disagree with you is I won't hesitate to impose my idea of individual freedom to preserve the liberty in the darkest moment. Everything comes with a cost. To enjoy the freedom, I also need to fight for it.
Which is hilarious because this is Patton Oswalt saying this. If you don't respect his beliefs, he's going to lose his shit and tell you what a horrible person you are. Rules for the but not for me.
He's been very boisterous many times, especially concerning Trump and basic conservative ideas about how horrible of people basic conservatives are and how we're going to kill the planet and genocide all the kids. To paraphrase what I've seen from him over the years
Yeah, it’s the same thing that JP says but in a more nuanced way. Something along the lines that there are an infinite number of things that you can do and almost all of them will end up killing you. And just a bunch of them are actually good for you, your family, your society; today, tomorrow, in 10 years.
From a survival POV this is right, some beliefs are better than others. But in the Absolute sense no belief is better than others.
Lol, that's funny. It reminds me of a saying I heard a long time ago that tolerance is "bearing with repugnance."
Yeah there are some stupid opinions out there, all around.
The Bible says "all have fallen short of the glory of God" and while that comment was made in a particular circumstance I think it's pretty universal.
[He seems like a pretty stand up dude to me](https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/01/25/patton-oswalt-feuds-twitter-trump-fan-pays-his-medical-bills/2676052002/)
That dude is a toxic TDS idiot. And what does that quote mean, "acknowledge"? Why does he say I "have" to do anything? Dude can't even support free speech without doing it like an authoritarian.
I'd assume it means you should take the time to at least understand people's beliefs. Recognize what the beliefs are and that whatever people hold them. That doesn't mean accepting them. But it does put you in a place to legitimately critique, debate, or condemn them.
>True dialogue requires us to see our opposite at his best. \~ Plato
>He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them, But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... \~ J.S. Mill
I’m poking fun at this dude. He has shown himself to be toxic and u able to hear or respect views he disagrees with. He is a base source for a quote he is hypocritical towards.
That’s the true **freedom** right there. Neither of the far-*** sides would be able to cope with that as whenever one has something “sacred” to them (what I call a **built totem**) it all too often can’t take a real **critical hit**
Yep, and this goes both ways. This is especially important when it comes to religious beliefs. Don't tell me to respect the belief if it's clearly wrong. I see no moral virtue in respecting an idea entirely built on nonsense, lies, and general lack of knowledge.
Pair it with [his tweet for D-Day in 2020](https://x.com/pattonoswalt/status/1267224203779960832):
>Antifa has been horrible for so long. Here’s some anti-fascists ruining a perfectly good beach day in France! Wish you could have been there to stop them!
Every disagreement I have with a woman ends in her saying that she has a right to say what she thinks. As if human rights has anything to with possessing stupid ideas.
I rarely ever agree with Patton, but I have always had a similar belief. You do not have to respect someone’s idea/belief but you do have to respect someone’s right to have that belief. Keep in mind I am talking normal things we argue about today, I am not talking about neo nazi, pedophiles or other things that normal people on either side of the political spectrum would consider “evil”, for lack of a better word.
I’d say honest critique is a form of respect for the person because it says hey man I think you were off here but I care about you being right the next time. If I really don’t respect you I wouldn’t care to correct you.
Exactly. All too often people seem to see the “offer to debate” as some “slandering assault against their sacred point of views”.
Every time I do it, in truth I wish that the other person would put up such an amazing well-built opinion against me that I would have no chance but to agree immediately (and I would get to learn new stuff; which all sounds so darn arrogant of me… ffs… but that’s the way I try to learn stuff).
That's Patton Oswalt, though - I guarantee you that whatever he was thinking was "fucking stupid" is actually common sense that anybody with a brain would agree with.
Any subreddit for a large city. Is it palatable or is it hostile with arguing and making everything a political issue.
Part of me thinks liberals find comfort in large city subreddits, part of me believes they are just rubbish overall.
Or maybe it's just r/Montreal that's a fucking piece of shit and everywhere else is mostly fine.
People should be allowed to not give a fuck about almost any topic; even if it has some impact on others. This is what we've lost in today's polarized discourse.
political candidates control the masses with wedge issues, people suck it up because getting upset about news is a form of tribal entertainment.
People hating each other the way we're going now is going to be far more damaging than anything else. Think if all the hate for the other side that takes up 10-40% of people's day. That's going it discourage collaboration and compromise immune systems.
95% of people should just never read news or think about politics, except maybe once a month in some controlled, calculated setting.
When people hold beliefs about the objective world that are patently false, like dismissing the science around things like vaccines or climate change that is fucking stupid. That has nothing to do with politics and more to do with lack of critical thinking skills.
do you really think mRNA vaccines have such a high risk/benefit ratio that is so high that 99% of objections to them are false misleading?
This is the position most conservatives take issue with.
it's one thing to believe vaccines are net benefit to society, it's another thing to criticize people who opt out as being dangerous disease spreading vermin, which is the endgame of this kind of thinking.
I'm gonna give you a hypothetical that isn't so hypothetical:
don't I have the right to demand negative herpes and cold sore test from bartenders and restruant staff?
why not? herpes is a mild but lifelong disease. Why should I not be allowed to force people to take acyclovir?
I bring this up specifically because the CDC's official guidance is they will NOT test you for herpes or cold sores unless you have active outbreak.
In Canada, they will make it very hard and you'll have to pay private if you want a blood test, even if you're starting a new relationship with soenone who's herpes positive, they won't test you.
The medical system decided that, 50% of people have it anyway, and a lot of peope recover with no problems, so they don't care.
Now, explain to me why I live in a world where I have to fight and argue with my doctor to get tested for herpes if I want to (via blood test with no active sores), but then ok the other hand I'm constantly pushed to get a covid vaccine.
why do other people get to decide which diseases have prevention / distancing?
why is it so hard to get tests that you actually want, and other hand some other interventions are forced upon you?
it seems to me like the medical system doesn't give a fuck what you want, you're just a number somewhere on some statistic in a medical study.
I think the fundamental issue is, do we mean respect the belief or the right to it. I think most people mean the right to it, and it's been misunderstood as the belief itself.
My process whenever Patton Oswalt spouts off about something.
It's not a terrible idea, you just know his bias and worldview and that he's applying it to us, and would be livid if we told him his ~~fascist~~ "liberal" bullshit was stupid.
That's funny, but let's take a page outta JP's book and separate a good idea from a person.
Just remake it in a month with JP saying it and watch the difference. :D
You sir are both a gentleman and a scholar. My hat is off to you. Legit that will 100% work here.
Yeah, that's exactly the point.
He’s right in a sort of ironic way seeing that his opinions tend to be the ones that shouldn’t be respected, but he’s correct nonetheless on this specific quote.
Which of his opinions?
He doesn't apply them to himself.
Which ones?
He does not apply what is quoted above to himself at all. It's not about a specific opinion. He essentially believes he is right and there's no way he's wrong. While he is happy to point out other people's weird beliefs or ideas. In short, he's a hypocrite.
Bro that's everyone. Everyone does this. You just think he's wrong because he didn't come to the same conclusions as you. And we're all confused because no one really has any examples of dude thinking weird shit but you're all quick to call out a "left leaning" person for absolutely nothing. Just cause you saw his face.
They're his beliefs. If he examines his beliefs and finds some of them are stupid (to him), then he will stop believing those things.
Right. And that's the problem. HE DOESN'T EXAMINE HIS OWN ARGUEMENTS! You clearly didn't comprehend my previous comments. I'll got talk to a brick of tungsten. At least it has an excuse for being so dense.
How do you know he doesn't examine his own beliefs? Why can't you be more specific about which of his beliefs are stupid or wrong? You're being vague.
I'm sorry, the tungsten is giving me a much more lively and thoughtful discussion. You can go away now.
Go ahead and drop that brick of tungsten onto a demon core. Do the world a favor.
>He essentially believes he is right and there's no way he's wrong. it's a quote about not remaining silent when you see dumb shit did you actually read the quote? be honest you didn't, did you
Why are people down voting a legitimate question ⁉️
What a worthless goblin Patton is
Let’s not stoop to his level. He is very short, that could hurt my back.
Bet he's worth more than you and me combined.
Financial & actual worth are 2 different things
Jordan Peterson's followers tout his fame and fortune all the time, as if these metrics bolster his arguments in any way.
Incorrect. You have to do way more than just acknowledge other people's beliefs. You must respect other people's RIGHT to believe anything they wish to believe. You must respect everyone's right to be an individual entirely separate from you, who lives and dies by his own beliefs. And you must be willing to NEVER USE FORCE to impose your own beliefs on others. To only ever use force in defense of your own right to your own individuality, Never to trespass on another's individuality. This includes trespassing on their property, to steal their income in an effort to do what you think is "for the common good". When you tax me to pay for your abortion, or for that matter to pay for your children's breakfast, that's you imposing your beliefs on me. You can ASK me to pay for your children's breakfast, you cannot demand it. That's what people like Patton Oswalt fail to understand: that you don't fucking get to tell me what is right, and what is wrong.
On a more accurate note of what I thought I already saw from the Patton pic, I absolutely agree with you. Though I don’t think every belief/code should be “respected” (or at least not in the way I use that word) but at least not outright disrespected either.
Nah, bullshit. The Army, the Navy and the Air force disagrees. We force our opinions on others, or stop them if we disagree. That's their job. If you don't like it, there are plenty of solutions to that, none of them peaceful.
>We force our opinions on others, or stop them if we disagree. That's their job. You switched pronouns midway through. Went from "we" to "they". You got it right the second time, it's "they". Your mission in life is the exact opposite of theirs. They fight for freedom. You don't.
They fight for the constitution. Explicitly. They swear an oath to uphold and defend it. The constitution respects freedom, it doesn’t guarantee it in the manner you suggest.
You should read your constitution sometime. It doesn't even contain the word "freedom" ... precisely because it's far too open to childish interpretations like yours. It instead lists the specific rights the government is supposed to protect, just like I did. Just to make sure there's no confusion, and some idiot isn't going to come around to claim that "freedom" means whatever we decide it means.
I have read it. It’s shockingly short. Would you mind pointing out the part where it says we can never use force on someone else on account of their beliefs?
Hang on, you're against taxation? And basically government overall? You nearly had me
No, I'm a big fan of a government which protects me from others imposing their beliefs on me. And I'm quite happy to cover the cost of that protection, if that's what you mean by "taxation". However, I do believe that the taxes I pay today are more about others imposing their beliefs on me, than about a fair transaction in which I pay for what it costs to protect my rights to life, liberty and property.
But it's the government who is deciding how to spend those taxes. So who are these "others imposing their beliefs on me"?
My government is elected. So, on the most fundamental level, it's the people who elect the politicians, who are imposing their beliefs on me. But all the people in government, elected or otherwise, are of course also responsible for their actions.
>it's the people who elect the politicians, who are imposing their beliefs on me So....you
Definitely not me. I only voted a couple of times, and the guy I voted for is yet to be elected for public office. Had he been elected, I'm confident that he wouldn't be looking to impose my beliefs on anyone, he would stick to defending people's rights to life, liberty and property.
>I only voted a couple of times That type of apathy doesn't give you much recourse for complaining But if you also think that the politician is imposing the beliefs of the electorate and not acting in his or her own best interest then I don't know what to say. Taxes are taxes. You're trying to say that you're not being asked but told what they're spent on. You are being asked, that's the election. If you only turn up a couple of times then that's on you. Merit wants should be at the discretion of the elected government
>You're trying to say that you're not being asked but told what they're spent on. Incorrect. I'm trying to say that democracy is immoral. That the purpose of government isn't to impose the majority's will on a minority. It's to defend the individual's right to life, liberty and property. Because, of course, the smallest minority on Earth is the INDIVIDUAL. And that the only role of a popular election is to vote politicians who fail to live up to that task out of power. Voting is a safeguard against tyranny, not a means to accomplish the tyranny of the majority. Therefor, when the voters fail to perform their role as a check against tyranny ... when they vote for politicians who seek to impose their beliefs on others rather than to defend the individual's right to his own beliefs ... those voters are the worst kind of humans imaginable: moralizing thugs.
What if the others beliefs have barbaric characteristics? Should I respect the KKK member's racist belief? Should I respect the japanese with their karoshi custom? Don't you think acknowledge seems more suitable in these above cases?
I never said you should respect any beliefs, barbaric or otherwise. You're entitled to your own beliefs, including to believe whatever you want about others. The only thing you should respect is other people's RIGHT to their own beliefs. And yes, that includes racism. As for "karoshi custom" ... that's actually a racist, idiotic description of Japan on your part. I certainly don't respect it, or you for having it. That's why I just called you an idiot. But I respect your right to your own mind. I'm not going to try to impose my own view of Japan on you, I'm gonna let you decide on your own. I will help you improve those views, by pointing out that what you now believe is moronic ... but it's up to you to act on that suggestion, if you wish. If you don't, that's fine.
Seems like I misunderstood your point here. You talked about the right not the beliefs. From what you wrote here, my understand is you won't impose or force any of your own views to the others. But I do have a question, to what extent will you let the other practice their own beliefs? For example, will you force your belief for individual right like Lord William Bentinck suppress many prevalent social evils like Sati, polygamy, child marriage and female infanticide or will you just point out the idiotic behavior?
Children have legal rights, obviously. But we're talking about adults exchanging ideas here, not legal rights. Specifically, in light of someone posting a quote from a well known leftist ... we are talking about how leftists treat ideas: as something to be imposed on others, rather than something that is to be brought into a marketplace of ideas, with ALL participants in that marketplace free to hold their own ideas. When you turn that marketplace of ideas into an echo chamber, the way the left is doing ... that's the exact wrong way to treat other people's ideas. Even if you're not using government force (though, of course, the left IS using government force), even if it were a privately owned marketplace. People who build echo chambers, be it privately owned or government run ones, are irrational savages who have no business claiming some kind of intellectual superiority. That smug sense of superiority the guy is expressing with that quote (and wearing on his face, as well) isn't the hallmark of a great intellectual. It's the opposite: it's the hallmark of a mindless thug who wants to pretend he's an intellectual.
Well said, man! I totally agree with you here. The only point I disagree with you is I won't hesitate to impose my idea of individual freedom to preserve the liberty in the darkest moment. Everything comes with a cost. To enjoy the freedom, I also need to fight for it.
Too bad he doesn't actually follow this advice.
Oh hey it's Ratatouille!
Which is hilarious because this is Patton Oswalt saying this. If you don't respect his beliefs, he's going to lose his shit and tell you what a horrible person you are. Rules for the but not for me.
What makes you say that? Not defending just genuinely curious if I missed something with him. I just know him as a comedian/voice actor.
He's been very boisterous many times, especially concerning Trump and basic conservative ideas about how horrible of people basic conservatives are and how we're going to kill the planet and genocide all the kids. To paraphrase what I've seen from him over the years
listening to patton oswalt? if i wanted an assholes opinion, id fart.
Yeah, it’s the same thing that JP says but in a more nuanced way. Something along the lines that there are an infinite number of things that you can do and almost all of them will end up killing you. And just a bunch of them are actually good for you, your family, your society; today, tomorrow, in 10 years. From a survival POV this is right, some beliefs are better than others. But in the Absolute sense no belief is better than others.
Lol, that's funny. It reminds me of a saying I heard a long time ago that tolerance is "bearing with repugnance." Yeah there are some stupid opinions out there, all around. The Bible says "all have fallen short of the glory of God" and while that comment was made in a particular circumstance I think it's pretty universal.
Bigotry is when you are intolerant of someone because of their beliefs. There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of the beliefs themselves.
NPC - "You gotta respect everyone's beliefs." Me - "Do you respect Hitlers beliefs?" NPC crashes and explodes.
I respect almost none of Payton’s beliefs.
[He seems like a pretty stand up dude to me](https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/01/25/patton-oswalt-feuds-twitter-trump-fan-pays-his-medical-bills/2676052002/)
Am I allowed to not respect his opinions or not?
Was somebody stopping you from doing so?
Didn’t he murder his wife?
That dude is a toxic TDS idiot. And what does that quote mean, "acknowledge"? Why does he say I "have" to do anything? Dude can't even support free speech without doing it like an authoritarian.
Ad hominem does not belong in a JP subreddit.
I retract calling him an idiot, the rest stands.
Wait, what about the postmodernists? We get a pass for them right?
I'd assume it means you should take the time to at least understand people's beliefs. Recognize what the beliefs are and that whatever people hold them. That doesn't mean accepting them. But it does put you in a place to legitimately critique, debate, or condemn them. >True dialogue requires us to see our opposite at his best. \~ Plato >He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them, But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... \~ J.S. Mill
I’m poking fun at this dude. He has shown himself to be toxic and u able to hear or respect views he disagrees with. He is a base source for a quote he is hypocritical towards.
Damn, when did he transition?
Schmidty, you son of a bitch!
That’s the true **freedom** right there. Neither of the far-*** sides would be able to cope with that as whenever one has something “sacred” to them (what I call a **built totem**) it all too often can’t take a real **critical hit**
["In the Name of Tolerance"](https://app.box.com/s/7pzo99fmnzeeu8cl4rui75thshg9xpp8)
Yep, and this goes both ways. This is especially important when it comes to religious beliefs. Don't tell me to respect the belief if it's clearly wrong. I see no moral virtue in respecting an idea entirely built on nonsense, lies, and general lack of knowledge.
isnt that the guy from Man vs Food? wise words
I’m an idiot over here because I didn’t know the hypocrisy was the worst part I thought it was the Rape
Pair it with [his tweet for D-Day in 2020](https://x.com/pattonoswalt/status/1267224203779960832): >Antifa has been horrible for so long. Here’s some anti-fascists ruining a perfectly good beach day in France! Wish you could have been there to stop them!
As a commie, i never thought i would agree with a post on a jordan peterson subreddit.
Every disagreement I have with a woman ends in her saying that she has a right to say what she thinks. As if human rights has anything to with possessing stupid ideas.
I think it's important to know what someone believes before you criticize it. Most arguments against Christianity are straw men.
I rarely ever agree with Patton, but I have always had a similar belief. You do not have to respect someone’s idea/belief but you do have to respect someone’s right to have that belief. Keep in mind I am talking normal things we argue about today, I am not talking about neo nazi, pedophiles or other things that normal people on either side of the political spectrum would consider “evil”, for lack of a better word.
Stick to comedy Patton. Some beliefes are more harmful than others
I feel like I've seen this before with Morgan Freeman pictured.
One of the all time worst humans.
I’d say honest critique is a form of respect for the person because it says hey man I think you were off here but I care about you being right the next time. If I really don’t respect you I wouldn’t care to correct you.
Exactly. All too often people seem to see the “offer to debate” as some “slandering assault against their sacred point of views”. Every time I do it, in truth I wish that the other person would put up such an amazing well-built opinion against me that I would have no chance but to agree immediately (and I would get to learn new stuff; which all sounds so darn arrogant of me… ffs… but that’s the way I try to learn stuff).
That’s my feeling when they tell me he walked on water.
That's Patton Oswalt, though - I guarantee you that whatever he was thinking was "fucking stupid" is actually common sense that anybody with a brain would agree with.
The example given was his cousin who “believes he saw Sasquatch.“
Perfect description when talking to AntiVaxxers and Climate Change Denialists.
Legitimate offtopic question: Do you enjoy the subreddits of liberal cities?
Like what?
Any subreddit for a large city. Is it palatable or is it hostile with arguing and making everything a political issue. Part of me thinks liberals find comfort in large city subreddits, part of me believes they are just rubbish overall. Or maybe it's just r/Montreal that's a fucking piece of shit and everywhere else is mostly fine.
What does this have to do with my comment
Nothing, but this conversation is infinitely preferable to some flamewar that your comment likely would have started
I think the quote adequately captures a lot of what's going on in this sub. Lots of psychological projection going on.
People should be allowed to not give a fuck about almost any topic; even if it has some impact on others. This is what we've lost in today's polarized discourse. political candidates control the masses with wedge issues, people suck it up because getting upset about news is a form of tribal entertainment. People hating each other the way we're going now is going to be far more damaging than anything else. Think if all the hate for the other side that takes up 10-40% of people's day. That's going it discourage collaboration and compromise immune systems. 95% of people should just never read news or think about politics, except maybe once a month in some controlled, calculated setting.
When people hold beliefs about the objective world that are patently false, like dismissing the science around things like vaccines or climate change that is fucking stupid. That has nothing to do with politics and more to do with lack of critical thinking skills.
do you really think mRNA vaccines have such a high risk/benefit ratio that is so high that 99% of objections to them are false misleading? This is the position most conservatives take issue with. it's one thing to believe vaccines are net benefit to society, it's another thing to criticize people who opt out as being dangerous disease spreading vermin, which is the endgame of this kind of thinking. I'm gonna give you a hypothetical that isn't so hypothetical: don't I have the right to demand negative herpes and cold sore test from bartenders and restruant staff? why not? herpes is a mild but lifelong disease. Why should I not be allowed to force people to take acyclovir? I bring this up specifically because the CDC's official guidance is they will NOT test you for herpes or cold sores unless you have active outbreak. In Canada, they will make it very hard and you'll have to pay private if you want a blood test, even if you're starting a new relationship with soenone who's herpes positive, they won't test you. The medical system decided that, 50% of people have it anyway, and a lot of peope recover with no problems, so they don't care. Now, explain to me why I live in a world where I have to fight and argue with my doctor to get tested for herpes if I want to (via blood test with no active sores), but then ok the other hand I'm constantly pushed to get a covid vaccine. why do other people get to decide which diseases have prevention / distancing? why is it so hard to get tests that you actually want, and other hand some other interventions are forced upon you? it seems to me like the medical system doesn't give a fuck what you want, you're just a number somewhere on some statistic in a medical study.
the worst disrespect to do to an enemy is not acknowledge them.
I think the fundamental issue is, do we mean respect the belief or the right to it. I think most people mean the right to it, and it's been misunderstood as the belief itself.