Tolerance being intolerant

[TheSchaef]

Then like I said--bad analogy. Your analogy is fine for the situation you described

The situation I described is what is taking place.

Like you said: "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." The original poster *is* "a case of the intolerant *demanding* tolerance because of his own philosophy."

I disagree. Intolerance is being defined as a refusal to capitulate to the social engineering that is being promoted as capital-T-Tolerance. This in fact is exactly what I have been talking about, with regards to the original idea of tolerance versus intolerance being usurped by these skewed notions of political correctness.

Why would people be "making it a point to *separate* the two" when the whole point of the OP's post is "a demand to be treated by rules you do not acknowledge"?

In other words, if you want to expand the scope of the discussion, that's fine: but don't criticize people for discussing the issue granting a premise you think is wrong to begin with when the OP is the one who opened up the thread based on that premise.

Because the rules he does not acknowledge ARE the ones derived from capital-T-Tolerance. Tolerance is reimagined in modern culture as a form of social engineering and those who do not comply are Intolerant. I see no issue with asking for tolerance without Tolerance. You say I am "expanding the scope" but I feel I am only clarifying in detail something he tried to convey more briefly.

And even if you remove that distinction from the discussion, there are still several points in the discussion where I also noted that such behavior still amounts to rationalizing acting like a douchebag while claiming to be sophisticated. Racism, for example, has been a running example of the kind of behavior that is "intolerant enough" that it's "okay" to be a complete dick to the person in question. However - and this is a point I've already made - people who did not vote for Obama, and/or do not agree with the policies he has been trying to enact, are accused of having racially-based motives for that opposition. Therefore, if I don't think the government needs to be throwing its hat in the health care ring, I must think that because our President is black. Ergo, I'm a racist. Ergo, I'm Intolerant. Ergo, the Tolerant have license to marginalize my reasonable opinion, shut down rational discourse and shun me from the discussion.

I don't see that as an "expansion of" the topic, but a point about where this rationalization of otherwise-inexcusable behavior does - not CAN, but DOES - lead. What you call an "expansion" I call an indication (not noted *as clearly* by the OP) of the slippery slope that is not fallacious because we are standing on it right now.

 

[cieply]

Based on my examples I know this seems pretty generic but I'm really meaning tolerance. In my country there was a case of "child molesting". Gypsies tend to marry their wives young. This one was married around 12 and the problem appeared when she had to give birth while 13. Now, this is gypsie way of life they practiced it for many centuries. Should we tolerate it or not? Government doesn't, which does not go well with "respecting other cultures". Not saying disrespecting this is bad, but people branding themselves tolerant drop their tolerance when it doesn't suit them. And still there is no problem talking with countries where a man can have multiple wives around the same age as gypsie girl.

We are tolerant of people insulting Christianity, but when someone insults Islam, it's like kicking a bee hive. And it's not only a problem of violent muslim response. I hate to see how government in Britain succumbs to muslim claims so much that it gets comical.

I don't see what this has to do with tolerance being intolerant. This is tolerance facing a situation that requires a bit more thought than other, more clear cut situations, but that's a different issue.

In Germany there are places where police cannot enter. Some government communal flats inhabited by scum (mostly criminals, far left punks). Yet noone does anything about it. In the meantime, some bald idiot beat someone and we have a nation wide skinhead hunt. How can goverment tolerate one group while both should be delt with.

Well, I think it's pretty clear why Germany gets a little more rattled when facing a possible issue of white supremacy ;-D

I just want to show that people are tolerant when it suits them, just masking their own agendas and prejeduces.

Well, then you have to *actually* SHOW that, not just describe a situation where it's possible and assume the situation is such that it supports your claims.

My examples show that this age of Tolerance has very little to do with tolerance. During the course of history people were not only tolerant of homosexuals but also pedophiles, polygamy, bestiality and sodomy. In our times we tolerate homosexuals and blacks and that's basically all. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm saying that?s usual and people now are no better with their prejudices than they were 1000 years ago. And that's OK! But that's not tolerance.
As for communists vs nazis - if you will count in Mao?s little revolution, nazis look like kindergarten kiddies compared to commies when it comes to number of people killed. And nazis actually had decency to slay other nations and stick with their own while communism turns the nation against itself. Just compare lifestyles of any german man and russian/chinese one.
But digressions aside, again people are not tolerant if they have no problem with an issue. I believe my examples shown that when we are facing something uncomfortable, we all act forgetting about respect. And as for nationalists it's natural, people claiming to be tolerant should think twice. And it's not a problem of giving some thoughts to given subjects. It's a problem of tolerance.

 

[Agema]

And even if you remove that distinction from the discussion, there are still several points in the discussion where I also noted that such behavior still amounts to rationalizing acting like a douchebag while claiming to be sophisticated. Racism, for example, has been a running example of the kind of behavior that is "intolerant enough" that it's "okay" to be a complete dick to the person in question. However - and this is a point I've already made - people who did not vote for Obama, and/or do not agree with the policies he has been trying to enact, are accused of having racially-based motives for that opposition. Therefore, if I don't think the government needs to be throwing its hat in the health care ring, I must think that because our President is black. Ergo, I'm a racist. Ergo, I'm Intolerant. Ergo, the Tolerant have license to marginalize my reasonable opinion, shut down rational discourse and shun me from the discussion.

Right, so your problem isn't really tolerance.

It's the cultural habit for the two political sides to shut down each other with varying degrees of propaganda slur. The left accuses the right of intolerance. The right accuses the left of Communism. The left accuses the right of greed. The right accuses the left of being anti-American. Et cetera.

So, yes, I can appreciate your problem with what you call "big T" Tolerance. However, for most of us who consider themselves tolerant, tolerance is a meaningful, well-intentioned and useful force even if some idiots use it as a crude tool to shut the opposition up.

Another factor worth considering is slandering ideas.

Feminism is an ideology that often can't admit it's name, because reactionaries spent so much time portraying it as its ludicrous fringe that most people associate it with the extremist minority to the point where many women who ascribe to feminist beliefs don't call themselves feminists. You can see the same again with the term "political correctness" itself. The term was mostly used self-mockingly by the Left to discredit those other Leftists who held to stupid nomenclature. It entered popular usage due to the right wing in the 1980s as a tool to bash and ridicule the entire Left, often in the course of them trying carrying out fair and legitimate anti-discrimination policies.

So you might appreciate, given the way that each side twists, mangles, and misrepresents and the history of discrediting, that tolerant people could view your sorts of arguments with a degree of trepidation. For every one that is actually criticising a real problem, another ten are really looking at discrediting an entire movement because it is supported by another political wing. So, whilst I'd agree with you on balance that a problem exists, I fully believe that this big-"T" Tolerance idea looks to me like an attempt to throw the baby out in the guise of trying to throw out the bathwater.

 

[Agema]

My examples show that this age of Tolerance has very little to do with tolerance. During the course of history people were not only tolerant of homosexuals but also pedophiles, polygamy, bestiality and sodomy. In our times we tolerate homosexuals and blacks and that's basically all. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm saying that?s usual and people now are no better with their prejudices than they were 1000 years ago. And that's OK! But that's not tolerance.
As for communists vs nazis - if you will count in Mao?s little revolution, nazis look like kindergarten kiddies compared to commies when it comes to number of people killed. And nazis actually had decency to slay other nations and stick with their own while communism turns the nation against itself. Just compare lifestyles of any german man and russian/chinese one.
But digressions aside, again people are not tolerant if they have no problem with an issue. I believe my examples shown that when we are facing something uncomfortable, we all act forgetting about respect. And as for nationalists it's natural, people claiming to be tolerant should think twice. And it's not a problem of giving some thoughts to given subjects. It's a problem of tolerance.

You are expanding "tolerance" to encompass what society deems moral and enshrines in law. However, this is pushing it too far, to the point it is meaningless: you're effectively arguing along the lines that tolerant people should tolerate murder.

Tolerance as a social philosophy is supposed to operate specifically in the field of discrimination. It comes into usage first (to my knowledge) with respect to religious toleration after the Reformation - the point being that as long as people from different religions respect the law, leave them alone even if you don't agree. What happened when it wasn't practiced is, for instance, the 30 Years War, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, or the various problems in Britain which encouraged the early migration to America.

It's used more widely now to encompass race, culture, gender and so on. The point is that intolerance results in discrimination. Surely very few people think our society should find it acceptable that people could persecute others for no good reason, just that they don't like the colour of their skin - I mean, I presume you agree that is a bad thing?

At the level of speech, it's more borderline. Lack of respect for or hatred of an Other is implicit in the use of such language, and implicit in that is the likelihood of discrimination, even violence, against an Other. No-one should consider banning calling blacks "n*****s". But the reality is that is it is pejorative, so it should be entirely fair to criticise someone for using the word. I would argue not taking action against "hate speech" emboldens bigotry, and even tacitly approves of it. The end result is increasing friction, resentment, and social conflict.

 

[Undeleted]

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.

The reason such views aren't tolerated is because they are harmful to the holder of the views, others around him or her, and society in general. hth

 

[TheSchaef]

Right, so your problem isn't really tolerance.

My problem is not with tolerance inasmuch as what's being discussed here isn't really tolerance. That's the point. I made the point several days ago that everyone but a very marginal few are tolerant just from common sense and a lack of ill intentions. So *by default*, the issue on the table is not tolerance, but Tolerance.

So you might appreciate, given the way that each side twists, mangles, and misrepresents and the history of discrediting, that tolerant people could view your sorts of arguments with a degree of trepidation. For every one that is actually criticising a real problem, another ten are really looking at discrediting an entire movement because it is supported by another political wing. So, whilst I'd agree with you on balance that a problem exists, I fully believe that this big-"T" Tolerance idea looks to me like an attempt to throw the baby out in the guise of trying to throw out the bathwater.

This paragraph of response actually illustrates quite nicely the level of social engineering predicated by Tolerance. Not only is the whole idea gotten out of hand, and your own examples painted the same picture in the attempt to make a counterpoint, but now a normal, reasonable person cannot say so because a handful of high-profile self-serving individuals have poisoned the well. If I cannot even *object to* Tolerance because of somebody else's agenda, then the original intent behind enforced political correctness is upheld, the suppression of alternative views - by those who claim to champion alternative views - continues unabated, and grossly uncivil behavior continues to be whitewashed and condoned.

If the idea behind tolerance is to see the individual behind the action and try to understand why he might join a gang or become an alcoholic or turn a plane into a missile, I think it has the patience to handle some of these other issues just fine. Otherwise, it is only selective tolerance based on subjective criteria, which is not tolerance at all.

 

[TheSchaef]

If things had not changed as you claim, we'd be sending people who believe in a Young Earth or in Intelligent Design off to gulags--we're not.

I'm a little concerned if this is how you now choose to define tolerance. We don't send racial minorities and gays off to gulags either. So I guess everyone except the KKK is tolerant and there's no reason to treat anyone so poorly.

The irony of this statement is that it amply demonstrates the duplicity of Tolerance: people who dare to think that our universe was created by a supernatural power are fair game for ridicule and scorn and marginalization. The kind of behavior that would never be acceptable if directed towards the "protected classes" of Tolerance. Which then in turn subjects THOSE offenders to... ridicule, scorn, marginalization. So there IS in fact a consistent pattern that emerges, not one of true tolerance, but one of capitulation to a prescribed set of values.

Like I said--bad analogy. It describes what is taking place in your view, but not what the poster is asking about.

I continue to assert they are the same thing.

So? Why does it matter where they are derived from for purposes of answering the question: is this "a demand to be treated by rules you do not acknowledge"?

It matters if you are trying to make the point that Tolerance is not true tolerance. If I do not acknowledge the "rules" of Tolerance, I can still make a point about what is supposed to be the nature of true tolerance.

I see no way in which pointing out where the rules come from will clear up whether this person is asking for the protection of those rules while claiming others should not have that same protection.

Because once the distinction is drawn between tolerance and Tolerance, the hypocrisy falls clearly on the politically correct zealot, who changes the rules to subjective notions of what constitutes [in]tolerance and a demand for respect that only flows in one direction. Under those circumstances, it is more than reasonable to question such disparity in what should be commonly defined, and why a person should not feel obligated to live by the rules he would impose on others.

Well, there you go: people are not addressing it because the OP only 'conveyed it more briefly and with less clarity and detail'. Why do you expect people to focus their attention on it when even the OP did focus his attention on it?

Please do not marginalize my statement by twisting "less clarity" into "not giving it attention". To post this response to you in one paragraph rather than three is more brief, and to give you one example (this one) as opposed to many gives less clarity. But neither detract one iota from the amount of focus on my central point. That's rather like saying the Reader's Digest version of a novel is not about the same thing as the unabridged version.

Oh crap, I've just given you multiple examples.

And double-crap, now I've posted more than one paragraph. So much for that first analogy.

 

[Lavi]

Well you see, I rather like the idea of getting married since there's only about ten countries/states with gay marriage being legal so if you start babbling about how gays don't deserve marriage, I'd probably hit you then wonder how the hell I even came across you.

Anyways, tolerance and intolerance are a circles where the extreme of one is the other. You only call racism when its racist or it'll stop meaning something.

Tolerance for smokers would be a start.

You guys smell funny, but it's ok because you don't stink up my house. There is my tolerance.

*hasn't smoked for 4 months now, but still remembers the near-apartheid against them*

I'm allergic to the smoke, but not all smokers stink like it. Those that do I generally want to die in a hole when they come on the bus and stink it up nice.

 

[historybuff]

So, you want people to be tolerant of ignorant intolerance?

Wow, deep. Hmm.

Sorry, but I have no problem calling out ignorant morons who make racist comments and slam homosexuals because they are ignorant or insecure.

 

[Romblen]

I don't know if this has been said before, but I don't want to read 3 pages full of discussion.

I usually ignore people who call me intolerant just because they're intolerant themselves. Countless times I've been called some very bad stuff just for being a Christian. I was told I was mentally unstable, that I looked for all my guidance for an "imaginary figure in the clouds" and that anything I said was invalid. Keep in mind that all they knew about me was my faith. Also keep in mind that I support gay rights. I'm a strong believer in separation of church and state. There's no reason to limit marriage to a man and a woman. All I care is that heterosexual people don't have any rights taken away.

Hopefully that rant made sense.

 

[Pilot Bush]

George Carlin did a series of shows that covered this, intolerance disguised as "Tolerance"

 

[Rolling Thunder]

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.

No, stereotyping is based on the idea the person creating the stereotype has about culture. Often that person is wrong.

Take the Zulu--the British thought they were savages that mutilated the dead because after a battle, the Zulu would cut open the chests of dead British soldiers. Turns out the Zulu believed that a soul could get trapped in a body if death was violent, and the way to free the soul was to open the chest up.

The Zulu got 'stereotyped' as savages, when really, they were extending what they believed to be proper funerary rights to their enemies as a sign of respect.

In other words, stereotypes ARE usually based on something that is true; however, they almost always involve misunderstanding that truth in some way that makes the stereotype no more accurate than a reflection in a funhouse mirror.

You, sir, have clearly yet to meet a Zulu.

I meet Zulu all the time!

Spoiler

although I play the pc version, not the console version. Although I have to say: when (if?) they come out with Civ5, I'd like to see some kind of civilization-specific benefit for each era: maybe one era with a Unique Unit, one era with a Unique Building, and the other two eras with some kind of bonus related to a technology from that era?

Could be quite hard, as the Zulu's never really got much past the tribal stage, sociologically, and didn't really invent anything unique except the impi.

 

[Agema]

Right, so your problem isn't really tolerance.

My problem is not with tolerance inasmuch as what's being discussed here isn't really tolerance. That's the point. I made the point several days ago that everyone but a very marginal few are tolerant just from common sense and a lack of ill intentions. So *by default*, the issue on the table is not tolerance, but Tolerance.

So you might appreciate, given the way that each side twists, mangles, and misrepresents and the history of discrediting, that tolerant people could view your sorts of arguments with a degree of trepidation. For every one that is actually criticising a real problem, another ten are really looking at discrediting an entire movement because it is supported by another political wing. So, whilst I'd agree with you on balance that a problem exists, I fully believe that this big-"T" Tolerance idea looks to me like an attempt to throw the baby out in the guise of trying to throw out the bathwater.

This paragraph of response actually illustrates quite nicely the level of social engineering predicated by Tolerance. Not only is the whole idea gotten out of hand, and your own examples painted the same picture in the attempt to make a counterpoint, but now a normal, reasonable person cannot say so because a handful of high-profile self-serving individuals have poisoned the well. If I cannot even *object to* Tolerance because of somebody else's agenda, then the original intent behind enforced political correctness is upheld, the suppression of alternative views - by those who claim to champion alternative views - continues unabated, and grossly uncivil behavior continues to be whitewashed and condoned.

If the idea behind tolerance is to see the individual behind the action and try to understand why he might join a gang or become an alcoholic or turn a plane into a missile, I think it has the patience to handle some of these other issues just fine. Otherwise, it is only selective tolerance based on subjective criteria, which is not tolerance at all.

I don't think we're actually arguing. We're making the same point, just from different directions like glass half full, glass half empty.

I have explicitly agreed with you that tolerance can be misused in your capital "T" form, and evidently you with me that the tolerance is a sensible, reasonable approach to see humanity tries to avoid misunderstanding and ignorance.

You have somewhat unfairly picked on one paragraph to make accusations of social engineering. That paragraph was intended as a caveat, and I thought pretty clearly reads as so: anti-Tolerance arguments can be abused to attack reasonable tolerance and its political affiliations, or as a fig leaf by people who genuinely are unplesantly intolerant.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The difference is now we're intolerant of people who have chosen to be ignorant.

Fuck racists

Fuck homophobes

Fuck sexists

they can eat shit and die

 

[TheSchaef]

I'm a little concerned that you left out and in no way acknowledged the comment to which I was responding:
"I'm saying that's usual and people now are no better with their prejudices than they were 1000 years ago."
and have taken me so completely out of context.

You're the one who took him out of context by making the gulag comment in the first place, as that is the statement which totally ignores the information he presented to you. He made an excellent point that cultures of antiquity tolerated certain behaviors that our modern society does not, and you went from there straight to "gulags", a term that invokes not 10th Century Rome or Britain, but the Soviet empire of the 1930s. Are you sure you want to cry foul on context after having gone so far afield in your own response?

I think all it demonstrates--amply--is that you're not looking for a discussion, you're looking for a soapbox on which to fight a strawman.

Another example of marginalizing a viewpoint so you don't have to invest any effort in understanding it. I personally have been called a racist for no discernible reason too many times within just the past year even to begin to entertain your assertion that I am just inventing a position just for the sake of arguing.

You have somewhat unfairly picked on one paragraph to make accusations of social engineering. That paragraph was intended as a caveat, and I thought pretty clearly reads as so: anti-Tolerance arguments can be abused to attack reasonable tolerance and its political affiliations, or as a fig leaf by people who genuinely are unplesantly intolerant.

The accusations of social engineering are not leveled at you, but at the state in which our culture currently finds itself, a product of the system. And while I largely share your assertion that we are closer to agreement than not (and have in fact hoped to demonstrate that advocates of true tolerance will find a lot more partners than dissenters), I could not look past your claim that people manipulating the backlash against political correctness to their own ends outnumber the reasonable people just wanting a fair shake by a factor of ten. I repeat my previous position that the ones just looking to see everyone treated with a measure of decency far surpass the vociferous few that are twisting the ideal.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

He with no enenemies never stood for something

 

[A Weary Exile]

If someone said the Earth is flat would you say "I respect your opinion." or "You're an idiot, they have pictures of it!"? Some things just can't be tolerated because they infinetley stupid in every sense of the word and are often times just not true. Not everything is left up to opinion.

 

[TheSchaef]

Keep proving my point for me. Saves me the typing.

But don't worry, I tolerate you anyway.

 

[Lord Krunk]

I'm intolerant of people being intolerant.

Different views on a subject are a different matter though; I love looking at things from new perspectives.

 

[Ridley200]

One should always be tolerant of other peoples predjudices.