Tolerance being intolerant

[cieply]

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.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Well, to be tolerant, you'd have to tolerate the people that are intolerant of other people. Which means you'd have to be tolerant of the people who don't like gays, blacks, whites, mexicans, transexuals, gamers, punk rockers, politicians...and the list goes on. Tolerance is just a term people use to engage in intolerant behavior.

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. But at the same time, to be tolerant I must allow a racist person to be racist despite what I think.

 

[BonsaiK]

People who are intolerant, asking others for tolerance of their intolerance, is a fundamentally incoherent ideology.

 

[Lord George]

Oh god its Political correctness got hoopey la la, now you want to pander to the intolerant as well so you don't hurt their feeling? We can't appease everybody.

 

[cieply]

It's all about discussion. I have a friend. She is a liberal, pro choice feminist while I'm pretty far right. Yet we still get along fine becouse even if we look down upon each others views, we still discuss them and have quite an intresting "brain brawl". While my other friend, when I said something racist almost blocked me saying "I'm a very tollerant person but I won't tolerate your intolrerance!". That pretty pissed me off and pretty much made me write this.

I'm not asking really for just blind acceptance of what other people say. I'm asking for a discussion. I base my opinions on some proof, you base yours on your proof. Someone has to be right and by comparing data we can often get a bit closer to understanding each other or changing our minds. But when people treat their beliefs like football clubs, well then whings get stupid.

 

[Baby Tea]

See, and I wouldn't say I'm too tolerant of intolerant people.
But I am tolerant of people who share different political views, religious views, or social views.

I think tolerance today, as a buzz word, is more about a unified people, despite having opposing worldviews.

 

[Ancientgamer]

People who are intolerant, asking others for tolerance of their intolerance, is a fundamentally incoherent ideology.

Except it's merely a hypothetical situation to illustrate the problem here. Your point's a red herring. Just because the idea can be seen as hypocritical in once perceived instance of it, doesn't change the fact it was never about the tolerant vs the intolerant. It's just two idiot sides with different views slinging poo at each other,

 

[Darenus]

I can see your point there and sadly agree with you to the fullest extend there. It is all too easy to be pushed from one opinion to the next without ever getting to open yourself up for the simple fact that you got to take them as given and just manage your way with it.

My own stance is not really much more tollerant there I am afraid. I hate haters and I support or let live anyone and anything that does not mean a harm to myself, others I care for or people in general (in that order, too).

Does this make me a moron?

 

[cieply]

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.
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.

Do people have to agree with this? no. But it's good when at least they try to see the logic instead of calling me cold and cruel. Same goes for racism but I wont bring up examples as it would probably start a flame war.

 

[Brett Alex]

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?

 

[Simalacrum]

to be fair, respecting other people's opinions is important, but then respecting other people's feelings is also important. We need to find a perfect medium between the two. Racism/homphobia/sexism, for example, shouldn't (and isn't) tolerated.

 

[Andalusa]

Reading that made the words "tolerant" and "intolerant" look really weird.

 

[Chipperz]

Do people have to agree with this? no. But it's good when at least they try to see the logic instead of calling me cold and cruel. Same goes for racism but I wont bring up examples as it would probably start a flame war.

Waaait, wait wait wait wait... You're trying to tell me there's any logic to racism? That whole "I hate him because he looks different" thing?

If you hate a black guy because he's a moron, I will listen, I will (probably) agree and I will accept that there is a logic to your dislike. If you hate a black guy because he's black, then there is no justifiable reason why I should need to think any more about it than how quickly I can call you a stupid twat.

Disclaimer - this doesn't work if you're black. If you are, pretend I said white, asian... Whatever, it's a hypothetical.

 

[lenin_117]

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.

(Sorry in advance for the caps lock but...)
YES! THANK YOU! YOU ARE EXACTLY WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR IN THE INTERNET!
Ahem. I cannot express enough how much I agree with you. Really. You have perfectly articulated whats been bouncing around the back of my mind for a while, and added to it as well. And w/o a wall of text. Jebus praise you.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

She is a liberal, pro choice feminist while I'm pretty far right.

See, there's your problem.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Tolerance for smokers would be a start.

 

[cieply]

Do people have to agree with this? no. But it's good when at least they try to see the logic instead of calling me cold and cruel. Same goes for racism but I wont bring up examples as it would probably start a flame war.

Waaait, wait wait wait wait... You're trying to tell me there's any logic to racism? That whole "I hate him because he looks different" thing?

If you hate a black guy because he's a moron, I will listen, I will (probably) agree and I will accept that there is a logic to your dislike. If you hate a black guy because he's black, then there is no justifiable reason why I should need to think any more about it than how quickly I can call you a stupid twat.

Disclaimer - this doesn't work if you're black. If you are, pretend I said white, asian... Whatever, it's a hypothetical.

There is no such thing as hating black people because they are black. There is always some reasoning behind it. And I don't have a problem with such an extreme feeling as hate, it's more like it annoys me that being critical or naming facts is now also branded as racism because it does not go along with the commonly accepted "truth". But I don't want to talk about race as I'm not really racist, I'm more of an asshole.
But homosexuals, they are a good example. For me it's just another deviation in sexual behavior. At the end of the day sex is about having offspring. We enjoy it along the way but thats what sex is about, what's "normal". And I don?t have anything against deviations, I don't really care if a man likes doing it with a dog, a plant or another representative of the same sex. But what pisses me of is claiming that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted as something equal to heterosexuality. While obviously it isn't. It's a deviation, a weird form of enjoying your life. If a man will be born with some defect, lets say a 3rd hand, his different. If he don't want to cure it, it's his business (and no one knows is homosexuality even curable) I mean there are lots of uses for a third hand. But if he will tell me that having 3 hands is normal, I call blullsit. And suddenly I'm called a Gorophobe, what a weird world we live in.

 

[ToxinArrow]

- snip -

- snip -

You sir win massively.

 

[Agema]

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.

With all respect, this seems pretty much just a semantic argument.

There is another internal paradox: a person who is intolerant should have no reason to receive tolerance. It's akin to arguments that could be made about freedom. The average "free" society is against murder, but that is restricting someone's freedom to kill people, so therefore people aren't free.

The answer you're looking for is simply that tolerance has limits: it's not an either/or, it's case of as much toleration as possible.

In order to maximise tolerance in a society, the intolerant must be restricted or dissuaded. A society must also have an instinct to preserve its values, and it is reasonable to take some action contrary to those values to defend the greater part. A society that values freedom puts people in prison to protect the freedom of others; a nation that values peace will fight to defend itself from aggression, and so on. In this way, tolerant people should be free to be intolerant of the intolerant.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I think intolerance should be used against intolerant. They deserve it. (The irony is murderous)