Tolerance being intolerant

[16bit survivor]

Tolerance for smokers would be a start.

Amen to that. Personal choice for the win!

 

[Crimson Cade]

Everyone is intolerant of something. I am intolerant of self-righteous liberal douchebags who thinks that their political agenda is "better", and try to invalidate any opposing opinion as "wrong" (NO! I am NOT defending the KKK etc. You can vote Republican and still be a decent person).

I am also intolerant of aspects of that are considered "black culture" like considering being "gangsta" and "thug" a good thing. They are pretty much the equivalent of skin-head white-trash who thinks violence is manly. And most of my black friends agree. That is kinda why they are my friends.

 

[Agema]

There is no such thing as hating black people because they are black... etc.

Firstly, you need to be cautious. If you start illustrating your views with inflammatory opinions, it looks like a troll thread where you gleefully expound stuff you know lots of people find offensive by hiding it under a facade of a "tolerance" discussion, and then criticisng them for intolerance if they argue.

Sure, people often do have "reasons" for their grubby prejudices.

However, the point is whether the reason is good or not. For instance, I could urinate on a friend's white t-shirt. However, were I to claim I did so for the reason that I thought the t-shirt would look better yellow, I wouldn't deserve much sympathy.

Secondly, there's an assumption you're right and rational. However, people might say you are wrong and call you homophobic or whatever because you are, and you might ignore truths and better arguments because you are irrationally prejudiced.

 

[James Cassidy]

I just hate the fact that people have the balls to tell me that I am intolerant of other people's cultures, but are intolerant of me celebrating Christmas or even saying "Merry Christmas." They are intolerant of me having Jesus on my wall and everything else. They are intolerant enough that they have to come to my door and tell me I am not enlightened enough to be a human being. "Who the fuck is you to tell me this? What balls do you have?" I ask them

I am so sick of these hypocrites who do this. If I want to put a baby Jesus on my lawn, YOU have to be tolerant of me putting it there so my culture can be established. Yeah you may not agree, you may not even like it, but by hell that gives you NO right to sue my ass because you are offended by a baby in a pile of hay.

People who claim others to be intolerant because they celebrate their religion or culture automatically makes the accuser intolerant.

Me? I personally don't care what you believe in so long as you don't interfere with my beliefs or my life.

I think this is reasonable.

 

[tsb247]

W Yes, "stupid niggers" would probably mean I'm an idiot, but that's what tolerance is about, coping with world views we do not approve. If we agree with something, we do not have to tolerate it.

Have you seen the South Park NAMBLA episode?

I hope you're referring to the North American Marlin Brando Look-Alikes!

But yeah... Political correctness is killing society. People have to censor themselves for fear they offend someone. Who cares?! Free speech should be just that - Freedom to say that you want!

EDIT: It ties into the whole tolerance thing. People cry, "Intolerance!" if someone says something that goes against what they believe.

 

[Gingerman]

Caring about people in general is a bad thing ;p No matter what you will do, if the decision is big enough, someone is going to get harmed.

Like when a baby is born with multitude of defects and sustaining his or hers life will cost hundreds of thousands. And such a child will never work or benefit the society in any way apart from being alive. If parent want to spend their savings in such an extravagant way, it's their choice. But no one else should waste their money in that way.

Completely agree here( to a degree)

but this

It's just like with taxes. When someone who works harder gets punished by paying more, it's not just. But it's humanitarian because it helps poor people meet ends need. But what would be just is to let the weak ones die and the strong prosper.
Or paying for very expensive operations from government money.The sad thing is people are money. And sometimes money just don't pay back. If such a person cannot avoid theirs operation, why would government invest in it. Like when a baby is born with multitude of defects and sustaining his or hers life will cost hundreds of thousands. And such a child will never work or benefit the society in any way apart from being alive. If parent want to spend their savings in such an extravagant way, it's their choice. But no one else should waste their money in that way.

To be perfectly honest I find the "Kill the poor" message here quite depressing, your wishing death on my current girlfriend here but I wont take it personally as I think your being vague in your views. Now back to my girlfriend, her father abandoned her at birth so her mother had to raise her with a low paying job, a job which I might add that didn't pay enough to live on so she got government help and now her daughter is at University doing Computer programming technology but if we were to "Let the weak die (in this context, poor I think you mean)" then you are denying life to someone who could benefit society as a whole. On the other hand if you mean people who live off the dough with no intention on lifting a finger to do work then yes I agree with you.

Also hard working rich folk? really? who would you say is more hard working, A builder/wielder (a real one not one of those slackers) or a man who plays football and gets half a million for one match? one involves technical knowledge on materials, tools and other things while the other requires mere physical ability.

(now if I have misread your post entirely then I apologise for the long rant but I do dislike the whole the lower classes are lower in more than one way attitude)

 

[THAC0]

"tolerance" is something i think that we can just do without.
If something isn't hurting anything, than there should be no big deal about it.

but if a person has hurtful ideas or some aspect of a culture is dangerous, then there is no reason on earth we should "tolerate" it.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't care about being tolerant, thank you so very much.

I care about trying to not be an asshole and trying my best to interact with people positively, assuming they even want positive interaction from me.

Racists and other assorted people like that which I have met, are usually quite hostile, so I have no qualms about being exceptionally negative towards them, tolerance be damned.
Freedom of speech means they can be assholes about other people?
Well I can do it right back to them!

 

[CloakedOne]

What many people don't understand is that stereotyping is based on culture. Therefore, Stereotypes are usually true because that is what that culture is taught. The problem arises when people begin to assume a person's personality quirks before they know them. When it comes to being intolerant, I'd have to agree with the following ideas:

I too see how people throw around the word "racist" as an ugly word without knowing how to use it. So many don't truly know what that word means. People throw that word around when people point out a cultural norm.

The word has gripped white people in a vice. They are afraid to mention anything bad about a member of another race because they will be racist. They can't get mad at someone else of a different race, deny them something,tell them they can't, or accuse them because some will say that they are racist.

I don't like people smoking, but the fact of the matter is that I should be tolerant of their habits. Luckily for me, my society doesn't seem to think so too.

I should be tolerant of people in the KKK and the Neo-Nazis. It seems very difficult to accept people who hate for the sake of hatred and are consumed with differences so deeply that they can't see beyond it even for a moment. They are actually willing to kill innocent people because of how they feel.

Should I really tolerate the sadists out there, the people that get sexual arousal from someone else's pain and suffering?

Should I really tolerate the Muslims out there that want me to die just because of the soil on which I was born?

Should I really tolerate the Christians who discriminate and shove their religion in others' throats?

Though many would say "no, don't tolerate that", but the rules of this land say I'm supposed to. Not everyone follows them, of course (quite the contrary), but we should. It's the only way to finally uniting as a people.

 

[cieply]

There is no such thing as hating black people because they are black... etc.

Firstly, you need to be cautious. If you start illustrating your views with inflammatory opinions, it looks like a troll thread where you gleefully expound stuff you know lots of people find offensive by hiding it under a facade of a "tolerance" discussion, and then criticisng them for intolerance if they argue.

Sure, people often do have "reasons" for their grubby prejudices.

However, the point is whether the reason is good or not. For instance, I could urinate on a friend's white t-shirt. However, were I to claim I did so for the reason that I thought the t-shirt would look better yellow, I wouldn't deserve much sympathy.

Secondly, there's an assumption you're right and rational. However, people might say you are wrong and call you homophobic or whatever because you are, and you might ignore truths and better arguments because you are irrationally prejudiced.

But that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Where is room for discussion if some topics are considered flame-ish and closed? Because they are offensive? But what if they are true? But yes, later on people just keep rephrasing new arguments and when nothing changes people star getting angry. And that is precisely where is the problem - football club attitude. People never want to learn anything new in a discussion, just to prove the opponents wrong. I illustrated my point with an inflammatory opinion exactly because I wanted to show that such thing should be a matter to discuss, not just say "troll" and close the topic.

And I think your example is a bit invalid. Having your views is more like urinating on your own shirt. Someone might not like it and walk away, others might find it funny and start pissing with you, some people would also start arguing that urinating on your shirt is a silly thing to do. But nowadays attitude is just to hit you in your head with a stick saying "mad piss lover"

 

[cieply]

To be perfectly honest I find the "Kill the poor" message here quite depressing, your wishing death on my current girlfriend here but I wont take it personally as I think your being vague in your views. Now back to my girlfriend, her father abandoned her at birth so her mother had to raise her with a low paying job, a job which I might add that didn't pay enough to live on so she got government help and now her daughter is at University doing Computer programming technology but if we were to "Let the weak die (in this context, poor I think you mean)" then you are denying life to someone who could benefit society as a whole. On the other hand if you mean people who live off the dough with no intention on lifting a finger to do work then yes I agree with you.

Also hard working rich folk? really? who would you say is more hard working, A builder/wielder (a real one not one of those slackers) or a man who plays football and gets half a million for one match? one involves technical knowledge on materials, tools and other things while the other requires mere physical ability.

(now if I have misread your post entirely then I apologise for the long rant but I do dislike the whole the lower classes are lower in more than one way attitude)

Uh, a lot of problems you tackled here. By survival of the fittest I ment something along Andrew Ryan philosophy. Yes life can be unfair, that's why we need governments and social help - to change a life killing blow into a deep but healing wound. But too much support is going to the slackers nowadays.
As for the rich, well they got rich somehow. Mabe by work, maybe by luck and maybe by wit. Most likely thans to all those aspects. But their work is theirs and why should they pay more.
And to become a star or a really succesfull business man you ned a hell of luck and work. What most people don't know is how much work and tetermination goes into success. Luck too, but much less then you would think.

To all the others I don't mean that hostile extremist should be tolerated. But nowadays it takes much less than that to be branded "racist" while the whole "tolerance" camp has a lot of active extremists in media and government. And while being violent is a bad thing, being submissive when others are violent, in the name of tolerance, is insane.

Anyway I didin't mean that we all should be very tolerant. I just wanted to show the hypocrisy of people who claim to be tolerant and are not in the slightest. It's just a diffrent agenda.

 

[SideburnsPuppy]

W Yes, "stupid niggers" would probably mean I'm an idiot, but that's what tolerance is about, coping with world views we do not approve. If we agree with something, we do not have to tolerate it.

Have you seen the South Park NAMBLA episode?

Actually, I think this more coincides with the Tolerance Concentration Camp.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

When I read the news or look around, I can't stand all this talking about tolerance and people being intolerant.
What we have today is just another world view branded as "tolerance" but in fact not being much more tolerant than any other in history.

If you have no problems with gay people or black people, you are NOT tolerant. You simply like them and you don?t have to be tolerant.

If I would say "niggers are stupid" or "homosexuality is a mental sickness" I would be called an intolerant f**k and perma banned. This is just a sign of intolerance, because we don't tolerate people with other opinions. Today natural response is just "omg you so racist" and not "why do you think that". Yes, "stupid niggers" would probably mean I'm an idiot, but that's what tolerance is about, coping with world views we do not approve. If we agree with something, we do not have to tolerate it.

Anyway, my point is it's the same old game, just instead op people shouting "Jews!" we have people shouting "racists!" and your average citizen is as unwilling to tolerate beliefs of others as he was 100 years ago.

Don't be so fucking stupid. Being intolerant of those with an unjustified and detremental view of others who don't deserve it in the slightest are better than racists and biggots. Don't even try and argue that fucking stupid point.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

But does this mean we shouldn't use education to show that their intolerant behavior may be irrational? Not at all. Racism for the most part stems from a lack of understanding of the facts about race.

Exactly. I don't even get why this is being discussed because this post ^ is the obvious answer here to a fairly stupid rant, and it was the first post in the thread.

We use logic to see what is irrational intolerance. Racism and Homophobia (just going by the two examples the OP listed) are both irrational. People who base their hate on irrational thoughts are fucking idiots. Therefore, racists and homophobes are irrational, intolerant fucking idiots.

My 'intolerance' of racists and homophobes comes from a logical deduction of their arguments, if you could call them that. Whereas their hate comes from "that guy is a different colour than me" or "ewww gay sex... but lesbians are hot". Yes, that's a generalization, and I know there are some racists and homophobes who put more thought into it. But I've yet to hear a good, deductive argument against either groups of people that can't be put down to subjective thoughts on things which do not effect the people who are hating; yet they hate anyway, which IS moronic.

Intolerance is measured by society as a whole, yes, we already knew that. Is that really surprising to you? That's the way the world works. The 'popular' opinions ultimately decide what is seen as right and wrong by society. You still have your free speech, and everyone can feel free to go and hate on other people for asinine reasons - and likewise, the people with half a brain can put you down for it.

You have your own opinion of what is acceptable, and you can be tolerant or intolerant of whatever or whoever you like; but if your opinion is not the same as the majorities then lots of people are going to go against you for that, and they have every right to.

 

[Agema]

Anyway I didin't mean that we all should be very tolerant. I just wanted to show the hypocrisy of people who claim to be tolerant and are not in the slightest. It's just a diffrent agenda.

I refer you to a previous comment of mine. An intolerant person has no logically consistent reason to demand tolerance, so the hypocrisy works both ways. Secondly, the tolerant can reasonably defend their ideology by taking action against the intolerant.

Let's put it another way. Think of tolerance not so much as its dictionary definition. It is at core a simple ideology: other people are due respect and fair treatment unless there is good reason to do otherwise.

Bigotry, by it's nature, is unfair and irrational. Thus the tolerant have good reason to take action to prevent bigotry to defend the principles of respect and fairness.

I'm not entirely clear why people go around on internet sites saying comments which amount to "I demand the right to behave like a shit to others and not be criticised for it" and expect anything but a hail of abuse of anyway.

 

[TheSchaef]

The problem with Tolerance - capital T - is that it's not actually tolerance. Most of it boils down to self-important tripe wherein someone is so pleased with their sophisticated worldview that others must capitulate to it or be labeled a neanderthal.

99.9% of the people on the planet understand tolerance to mean "just don't be a douchebag". They understand that things like pigmentation or who turns you on is just one aspect of a complete being and doesn't really matter a whole lot in the great scheme of things, so what's the big deal? Most of the people taking issue with the original poster are defending tolerance, apparently not realizing that what's being preached in America is capital-T-Tolerance.

An "intellectual" comes along and decides that people just being people and getting along is not good enough, we have to "celebrate" differences and talk and act a certain way in order to show how tolerant we are. For people who claim to be working for a world where our differences don't matter, they seem eager to highlight and magnify those differences.

But then again, this is the mindset that thinks 66 million sophisticates voted for Obama, and 58 million racist homophobe redneck high school dropouts voted for McCain.

An intolerant person has no logically consistent reason to demand tolerance

One does not have to demand treatment inconsistent with one's philosophy in order to point out that someone else's treatment is inconsistent with their own philosophy. I don't have to become a vegetarian to point out that you're a hypocrite if you're a vegetarian who takes meat sauce on his spaghetti.

 

[Pingieking]

I find the entire "tolerance" idea to be kind of useless and distracting. My thoughts on this is composed of two different components; the physical world section and the human society section.

Physical World: In this case I think that "opinion" is a very overrated idea, and tolerance of opinions has a tendency to hold back human interaction with the world. There's no need to ban people who say things like "niggers are stupid", "people lived peacefully with dinasaurs" or "kill all the fags". Those are opinions and people are free to express them. But at the same time, opinions are generally quite worthless. The world outside of human society does not give a rat's ass about human opinions, and we would probably gain much from realizing that. As for how we should handle people's opinions in debates in this catagory, I think that opinions should be separated into "beliefs" and "conclusions". "beliefs" are things people belive without any experimental evidence to back it (life experiences don't count, since they're not controlled and thus unreliable), and should be ignored. "Conclusions" are basically opinions based upon experimental evidence, and these should be used to determine how humans want to interact with the world. All "beliefs" are worthless and unnecessary. "Beliefs" are based upon ignorance and stupidity, and thus should be stamped out without mercy. "Conclusions" should all be tolerated, though perhaps not taken seriously (string theory is tolerated, but not taken too seriously).

Human Society: It gets a little sketchy here. The intolerant asking for intolerance is a paradox, as are the tolerant cracking down on intolerance (though on a lesser scale). The difficult part comes in three parts; 1) Popular opinion always wins, regardless of what the opinion is. 2) Majority of humans are irrational being that hate learning and thinking, thus meaning that opinions are usually bullshit ideas that have no basis in reality. 3) The freedom of speech and expression, which comes into constant friction with verbal abuse and slander. The obvious answers to these problems are obviously education and decency, two things that most humans aren't equipped with. So I really have no solution to this problem except try our hardest to equip all humans with knowledge and decency.

Finally, why do people think that they can talk shit that's totally false and not be brutally abused for it? Yes, they do have free speech, but everyone else also has the right to call out their bullshit and abuse them for it. It's the price they have to pay for being uninformed and indecent.
I think slander should be punishable by death.

 

[TheSchaef]

Yes, but verbal abuse of others undermines a philosophy that claims to strive for understanding and unity. We can all unite in love and understanding, just as soon as we finish tearing down the people who lack our level of understanding and sophistication.

 

[TheSchaef]

redacted

 

[cieply]

Don't be so fucking stupid. Being intolerant of those with an unjustified and detremental view of others who don't deserve it in the slightest are better than racists and biggots. Don't even try and argue that fucking stupid point.

You missed my entire point... I don't want to say that you should be tolerant. I just wanted to show that all that self-righteousness is just as good as it was in any other system. You have your own beliefs and you enforce them upon others. And people who say otherwise are "fucking stupid". And that's good, that's how society works. I just don't like this false facade of righteousness.

And look how angry you got. That just illustrates what I was saying here. And no reason to get impolite, for a civil person that holds such high moral standards you surely easily lose your temper...