What does being "tolerant" mean accepting bigotry?

[Rebel_Raven]

It's a common human condition that people want to be accepted, and tolerated. It makes a person feel better knowing they're among like minded persons, or people that can indeed stand to be around them, perhaps even want to be around them.

The intolerant, the bigoted, the hateful, they're not necessarily ready to be on the receiving end of their own practices, so they often ask that they receive treatment they're not necessarily ready to give to others.
For better or worse, though, they can, and sometimes do find people that share their views on other people.
Those that don't want to find these people, so they definitely want people to tolerate, and accept their views.

 

[Signa]

As I have always said, "the only thing the Tolerance Movement has taught us is to be intolerant of intolerance. It's a fundamentally flawed concept"

Now if you'll excuse me, I got better things to do than fight in this shitstorm that's brewing.

 

[derprimus]

Why should I accept the neo-nazis, the klansmen, and the westboro baptist churches of the world?

You shouldn't. And if you have your doubts, here, I give you my personal permission to mock and humiliate all bigotry you see. Just keep in mind that most of the times it's pointless thing to do in the internet, where bigots hide behind their kewl internet persona and use standart "arguments" and demagogy which they saw other bigots using on a Neo-Bigot-Rights.com. While IRL, when the umbilical cord between bigot and global bigot community is torn, it's easier to make them trip and fall over their own misconceptions. It's pretty amusing.

If your don't have any familiar bigots IRL - good for you! Step 2: stop caring about bigots in the internets. If they have to play intolerance card even when debating online, it means they are pretty miserable folks already. And their opinions are irrelevant.

 

[Olas]

Why can't people just learn to tolerate my intolerance of people who don't tolerate intolerance of intolerance, is it really that intolerable?

Real answer: People are allowed to believe stupid things. You're allowed to believe they're stupid for believing those things.

The degree to which both of you are allowed to actively discriminate based on those beliefs is a legal matter. Though personally I think you should be able to discriminate on anything actually relevant to what the discrimination is for?

For example: you can discriminate against black people when choosing the actor to play George Washington in a movie because George Washington wasn't black and it would be historically inaccurate to portray him as such. However, you do not have the right to discriminate against black people when hiring employees to provide customer service. There are definitely gray areas to this but it's just a basic rule of thumb.

 

[generals3]

I think it depends. If we're talking about people who are spreading violence and hatespeech, than yes we should be intolerant. After all, hate and violence is pretty much frowned upon by everyone.

However if someone wants to go on the street to express his negative opinion towards gay marriage, so be it. He's merely expressing his opinion. You may feel it is misguided but don't forget he'll think your opinion is misguided too. And since what is right and wrong changes all the time maybe in 20 years you'll be the one on the short end of the stick on certain matters and you may be the one who will be told to shut up and stay home because your opinion is unwanted. Surely you'd want your right to your opinion and to express it to be preserved at that time?

And I would also like to note there is also a difference between tolerance and freedom of criticism. You can tolerate someone to protest against something or in favor of something and still disagree with it and express why. Just like I tolerate the existence of socialist political movement while i generally disagree with pretty much everything they want to do.

 

[Saelune]

Some people are naïve and stupid and unrealistic. Sounds harsh, but its true. I took a human rights class in college once, and we had to "respect" some UN article about human rights all people have. According to this though, my pro-death penalty stance was in conflict with it... since all people have "a right to life". But we also have a "right to freedom" by it and thus prisons conflict with that. But people are bad sometimes, and why is it better to let bad people hurt good people and be "fair"? If a person does wrong, their own life loses value in my opinion.

Ofcourse on the otherhand, we should not -force- people to think a certain way. That is, if they don't think that way, they don't and need to be convinced with reason, not outright force. If someone hates blacks or gays, it wont do no good to just hit them everytime they say something wrong, but to show them somehow whats wrong with their thinking so they understand. But some people will always be ignorant idiots and I wont respect them.

 

[Sellon88]

As I see it tolerance is like a gauge in itself. You want to keep it balanced. being intolerant is just as bad as accepting everything that comes your way without criticism.

 

[Torkuda]

But here is a monkey wrench. We don't like people restricting us playing games and saying where we can't play them, but what if they're arguably being reasonable? What if the person is asking you to please not play Mortal Combat in front of his onlooking four year old? Agreed, MC is a great game series with cool graphics and I think it's hogwash to try to say it caused the last school shooting or what not, but you're still on public property playing a graphic game about killing people. Seriously, reverse the situations. Do you want them watching the Passion of the Christ on the bus so you have to watch and listen to the crucifixion scene? Do you want them playing Saving Private Ryan? But hey, they're not tolerating you are they?

This is why I don't call myself tolerant. I call myself anti racism, sexism etc, etc, what have you. Tolerant means to put up with. Go ahead, be mean to my adopted Albanian cousins and we'll show you how "tolerant" anyone in my family really is.

 

[Strazdas]

This idea has been thrown around a lot in a number of threads here, and seriously, I don't get it. I don't get why a person who accepts that all people are equal also has to accept those who think that black people are sub-human. And why should I? Why should I accept the neo-nazis, the klansmen, and the westboro baptist churches of the world? Should I not call out their vile shit as vile shit, and let them know that they are wrong for holding such views? I mean, not all views are created equal. Some of them are awful, and need to be addressed.

Because if you think that a neo-nazi is bellow you then you clearly dont consider all people equal - your excluding neo-nazies.
On the other hand you can be tolerant and dont think all people are equal. you for example can think that person X is stupider than you and still dont go on a rampage against him.


There are no "Wrong" views. they are all different views and people are allwoed to have them. What people are not allwoed to do is to harm others, which sometimes thier views lead to (for example KKK). As long as they realized that they should not at any case harm others they can think whatever they want.

I mean we don't see a law that forbids hate-speech as an opening for completely abolishing free speech (I mean what kind of looney lawyer would even try to do that).

Its not like Europe lack examples....

E.g. "You can't deal with my disagreement about the gays"
How tolerant of me to entertain your idea that an entire group of people should not be tolerated or treated equally.

"I deal with your disagreement about the gays and you have to deal with my criticism of your standpoint" is how i always respond to these people.

Bigotry is wrong.

In your opinion. My opinion is also that bigotry is wrong, but its very easy to play devils advocate with statements like these.

I understand everyone's got their own opinions.

Then again, some are just wrong. The opinions that 2 isn't actually a number and instead a space alien is wrong, because humans made 2 and the space aliens actually made us (and "this" world and all of you are actually just figments of feverish imagination because I'm in a coma in the "real" world and thus I'm technically God and can conjure Dr. Pepper whenever I want, with only the foreskins of babies that I found in the street. I'm still working on it, though.. which also means I created mathematics.. but I can hardly do basic arithmatic.. but I'm a genius for making it!).

You do realized that we created the symbol "2". We could have been wrong while doing it and in fact back then we were. for many hundreds of years we did not have negative numbers and in fact it was though that any operation that would result in negative nubmers was wrong and in error. Later somone invented negative numbers, and suddenly all of those "wrongs" turned to "Rights".
There are no "Wrong" opinions. there are different opinions, and when that opinion falls into "i dont like" category for great many of people, they tend to automatically dismiss it as wrong. it would be quite hard to live without such assumptions.

only a sith beliefs in absolutes, my friend.

this is a paradox, becuase the statement itself is an aboslute.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I mean we don't see a law that forbids hate-speech as an opening for completely abolishing free speech (I mean what kind of looney lawyer would even try to do that).

Its not like Europe lack examples....

Exactly.

That's why we usually have big fat NO stamps on groups that would like a repeat on that.

 

[Strazdas]

So, is it intolerant to be intolerant

I think you may just asnwered your own question.

Why can't people just learn to tolerate my intolerance of people who don't tolerate intolerance of intolerance, is it really that intolerable?

Probably because if you claim to be tolerant while doing what you just decribed (no im not going to repeat it), you are using double standarts, and us being intolerant, are not tolerating double standarts?

Some people are naïve and stupid and unrealistic. Sounds harsh, but its true. I took a human rights class in college once, and we had to "respect" some UN article about human rights all people have. According to this though, my pro-death penalty stance was in conflict with it... since all people have "a right to life". But we also have a "right to freedom" by it and thus prisons conflict with that. But people are bad sometimes, and why is it better to let bad people hurt good people and be "fair"? If a person does wrong, their own life loses value in my opinion.

To be honest a lot of UN "human rights" are despicable and has lead to terrible things. Amd i have my right to express this opinion, and you have a right to argue against it, because thats the beauty of free speech.

But here is a monkey wrench. We don't like people restricting us playing games and saying where we can't play them, but what if they're arguably being reasonable? What if the person is asking you to please not play Mortal Combat in front of his onlooking four year old? Agreed, MC is a great game series with cool graphics and I think it's hogwash to try to say it caused the last school shooting or what not, but you're still on public property playing a graphic game about killing people. Seriously, reverse the situations. Do you want them watching the Passion of the Christ on the bus so you have to watch and listen to the crucifixion scene? Do you want them playing Saving Private Ryan? But hey, they're not tolerating you are they?

This is why I don't call myself tolerant. I call myself anti racism, sexism etc, etc, what have you. Tolerant means to put up with. Go ahead, be mean to my adopted Albanian cousins and we'll show you how "tolerant" anyone in my family really is.

you had a great argument... and blew it. That person with 4 year old should go about his business and take his 4 year old with him. as long as im not on his property i can play whatever game i want. it is his own fault for putting his child in front of my screen.
Same goes for movies on buses. you can watch (in fact, i do) whatever movie you want on a bus. Sound should be restricted, as that is something that harms others and cannot be avoided, however as far as video goes they are looking at it of their own free will. im not showing it in front of their faces. no, i sit in my corner in a position that they have to go though extra effort to even see whats going on on my screen. and if they do - its their own fault.
though to be honest i do avoid movies with extended sex scenes on bus rides because i get enough social shaming just for being a gamer above 18 years as it is.

I mean we don't see a law that forbids hate-speech as an opening for completely abolishing free speech (I mean what kind of looney lawyer would even try to do that).

Its not like Europe lack examples....

Exactly.

That's why we usually have big fat NO stamps on groups that would like a repeat on that.

which has achieved nothing but pushed such groups into underground where it is much harder to track and control their actions meanwhile making them feel stronger by acting repressed (they are). In fact, it also has created a lot of problem for other people, for example Nazi swastica is the local symbol of sun and fertility, and hindu siymbol of luck, yet neither of these two groups can use the symbol in my country because its banned as nacism. (lets not forget swastica is the oldest cross in human history).
These NO stamps do more hanr than good and in fact themselves are perfect example of the very thing they are made to prevent - segregation and control of though.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I mean we don't see a law that forbids hate-speech as an opening for completely abolishing free speech (I mean what kind of looney lawyer would even try to do that).

Its not like Europe lack examples....

Exactly.

That's why we usually have big fat NO stamps on groups that would like a repeat on that.

which has achieved nothing but pushed such groups into underground where it is much harder to track and control their actions meanwhile making them feel stronger by acting repressed (they are). In fact, it also has created a lot of problem for other people, for example Nazi swastica is the local symbol of sun and fertility, and hindu siymbol of luck, yet neither of these two groups can use the symbol in my country because its banned as nacism. (lets not forget swastica is the oldest cross in human history).
These NO stamps do more hanr than good and in fact themselves are perfect example of the very thing they are made to prevent - segregation and control of though.

Again, this is where you lose most Europeans.

We don't think this is "thought control". It's just making sure that we don't have to go through a lot of stupid legal work to hinder any uprising Hitler or Mussolini.

You can't use US ultimate logic in this. There is a greyscale to liberty and we'll gladly give up stuff we don't even use.

 

[Griffolion]

I think it's more about accepting their right to their opinions. You can still criticize them.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

I'm not actually a fan of the term "bigot". It's an overly emotive term that can be very cheaply used to label a person for something you don't agree with. Anyone can call anyone else a bigot; someone with half a brain can usually find some twisted logic to justify the application of the label to someone, anyone else.

Many other posters here have put it better than I have. Many of the people self-rightously using the term "bigot" against others (mostly in the hot-topic, here-today-gone-tomorrow matters of current culture) are exercising a vast quantity of irony.

 

[generals3]

which has achieved nothing but pushed such groups into underground where it is much harder to track and control their actions meanwhile making them feel stronger by acting repressed (they are). In fact, it also has created a lot of problem for other people, for example Nazi swastica is the local symbol of sun and fertility, and hindu siymbol of luck, yet neither of these two groups can use the symbol in my country because its banned as nacism. (lets not forget swastica is the oldest cross in human history).
These NO stamps do more hanr than good and in fact themselves are perfect example of the very thing they are made to prevent - segregation and control of though.

No it's actually even worse. It is pushing those groups to use deception. They moderate their speech but not because their beliefs have changed but to avoid the PC police. And the negative consequence of that is that they end up getting the support of more moderate people who wouldn't support them when they were being straight to the point. You just need to look at the what Marine Lepen did with the Front National.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

By definition, yes. In order to be tolerant you must not yourself be bigoted. In one of life's fun recursions, confronting a bigot for being a bigot necessarily makes you a bigot yourself.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Being tolerant doesnt mean accepting bigotry. You are free to hate gay people, or different races, religions or whatever. Just means you should accept how another person chooses to live their life and keep your comments to yourself.

Now someone making racist comments or homophobic comments - you can either ignore them or tell them what you think. Thing is we all have the right to hate something, but that doesnt mean you should insult or abuse someone based on that hate.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not sure it is, only says they do, not that they have to, or even that they only believe in absolutes.

"Only" is an absolute statement.

many say "Those intolerant people should just shut up or BE shut up."

That statement is qualified with what Wikipedia would call "weasel words."

I'm sure a there are people who talk like this, but I'm yet to see any demonstration of a significant number.

Further, I'd say it's more hypocritical of bigots to demand tolerance, which is where this issue originates contextually. People want to be afforded the same thing they will not afford others.