Originally Posted by InterMusketeer
So being far-right is fine as well, by your standards?
Or is this just another way of saying: "If you don't have the exact same opinion as me you're a shithead."
I think they're saying that there are situations where it is necessary to make a decision; the assumption that being moderate is automatically "good" is flawed.
Beyond that, there's something else I'd want to unpack here: Having the same opinion as me is axiomatically
something I think is good. I believe what I believe; therefore, if you agree with me, I think you're right, and if you disagree with me, I think you're wrong. Some opinions I have differing degrees of confidence in, or I weigh differently in terms of importance - but I feel that there's this trend sometimes, especially when defending unpopular ideas, to say "well, all opinions are equally valid, right?", which is self-defeating nonsense.
We can have useful and constructive disagreements about some things (although some others are so foundational that it's hard to see anything to discuss - and figuring out which things people consider that central can be illuminating), but the idea that all ideas need to be coddled and pampered and treated with equal tolerance is ridiculous claptrap. We tolerate all people
(even people with terrible ideas), because we accept that there's a basic worth to all humanity, regardless of their race, gender, or culture, and regardless of how dumb their ideas might be. But stupid ideas deserve to be called stupid; and arguing that all ideas and all positions inherently deserve
an equal hearing is obviously nonsense. There's only so much intellectual bandwidth to go around; the marketplace of ideas has winners and losers, and when an idea has lost it isn't automatically entitled to keep coming back day after day expecting hearing after hearing. If you want to try and argue an unpopular idea, be my guest, but if you find it to be an uphill fight, that's the marketplace of ideas working the way it should - good ideas get discussion and analysis and refinement; bad ideas sink to the bottom and become historical footnotes.
This also ties back into my issue with people claiming that academia is biased against their ideas. I don't believe there is a systematic ideological bias in academia; but I do believe it is supposed to be biased against bad
ideas - ones that fail to convince people in a rigorous setting, ones that fail to satisfactorily prove their case, or ones that aren't useful for explaining the universe. Many of the conservative ideas that people are talking about were once completely mainstream in academia; they lost not because of some sinister conspiracy but because they were unable to hold their ground in the marketplace of ideas.