it’s cool that you blocked me, so i can’t respond to thisat any rate, i don’t actually particularly
it’s cool that you blocked me, so i can’t respond to thisat any rate, i don’t actually particularly desire a broad overton window, which would allow people to “discuss any view, no matter how absurd and repulsive,” since that actually seems like it would be really socially dangerous. the overton window serves a valuable purpose, and while i object to the current placement of the window, overall, i agree with the abstract concept that there are political positions which are repugnant enough that it should be socially discouraged for someone to hold them. roosh v is a great example, as is NAMbla. moreover, the idea that the overton window is likely to “narrow” or “widen”, as opposed to shifting, seems very detached from reality. for example, the increased acceptability of same-gender romantic relationships is directly and unavoidably tied to the decrease of the social acceptability of homophobia. which is, in my opinion, fine. but according to your reasoning, the reverse is true, and the decrease in the social acceptability of homophobia will somehow result in the decrease in the social acceptability of same-gender relationships (???)the view that the overton window “narrows” rather than shifts seems to be based on an assumption of a static political center, which is actually a fallacy that a lot of “rationalist” thought seems to build off of. -- source link