I know that you have just expressed this in relation to another's post, but I at least seem to not be very good at figuring out how the specifics are intended. Could you perhaps make up some example out of thin air of this that would perhaps provide a second example?
Sure. Trump calling CNN fake news, etc. Religious groups banning the study of other religions or philosophies. People who denigrate the opinions of others because of their social status, bad grammar, political affiliation, etc. Scientific papers whose introduction is a concerted attack on the opinions which came before them. Those opposed to Trump who claim some superiority in their ideas on the basis that Trump is a serial liar, in the pocket of Putin, etc.
When you support your idea through making another idea or person invalid, it is a definite indicator that you are going wrong somewhere. It doesn't necessarily mean your idea itself is wrong. It might mean you're defending against some uncertainty, fear of losing social status, or a whole number of other reasons. But it isn't necessary to destroy or suppress another for you to be valid. When you succeed in doing so, it closes you off to the opportunity to challenge your own self which might lead to transformation or enrichment of the idea at hand, even if you are knowingly challenging yourself with something flawed.
For example, those that might attack the wall as a bad idea. Well, I've heard few actually analyze the wall itself rather than focus on Trump's and others' behavior. Logically, it seems to me that building a wall at the southern border would reduce illegal border crossings. There is potential merit to the idea. I still thing it is the wrong idea because when I have looked at data on the benefit and harm of those who enter the country on the border not through legit ports of entry, I don't see a compelling reason that this is bad for the country. Certainly not enough to warrant the cost. Beyond that, I think the cost of the wall in terms of promoting xenophobia and isolationism internationally themselves are undesired and more significant than any impact it might have on immigration. That's why I'm opposed to the wall. As for the parts of Trump's and other's behavior on the matter, this is a separate matter and I think is leading the country to worse and worse governance, greater division, and poor ethics. These are among the reasons I desire real action to stop Trump himself.
When those you know 'succeed' they also very often change, and cease to be the people you knew. "Success" is frequently a form of emigration (sometimes literally). Phrases like "rise with your class not from your class" exist for a reason. Differential degrees of 'success' can fracture social bonds. Yugoslavia broke apart partly because different parts of the country diverged economically. Brexit seems to have some similar drivers.
There's a tension between solidarity and belonging on the one hand, and the expression of individual ego on the other.
Furthermore (and this is a seperate issue, really) life is more of a zero-sum game than is acknowledged. Again and again, someone's success does, in fact, harm others, because it leads to an imbalance of power, and power tends to be abused.
Dogs probably don't attach that much value to solidarity and community with cats, so the dilemma seems a bit simpler there!
There's a lot to potentially unpack here. Personally I think the way I would like society to evolve would be in the direction of greater and greater cooperation instead of competition. Both aspects of course are worth acknowledging. There isn't an absolute wrong in desiring your success when it comes at the expense of others. I do think it imperative to evaluate, however, whether such a paradigm is actually in play. Because it is sometimes (perhaps often) the case should not be a reason to ignore the possibility of pursuing something mutually beneficial.
I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean suppressing 'another point of view' within yourself, or supressing it in the world out there?
Well aren't you a deep thinker now.
I think most people would, if they recognized themselves suppressing something at all, describe the act as suppressing something external. But I think it might not be so simple. Very often (perhaps always) that's just a displacement of an internal conflict.
Facebook
Twitter