What does being "tolerant" mean accepting bigotry?

[MrFalconfly]

Which is your opinion, which you can have, because there is a thing called free speech. However, as you do not want to allow others to have their opinions, what would happen if we too your opinion as well?
Im sure you wouldn't like if someone just told you to "Shut you your stupid you have no rights". becasue thats exactly what your doing to them.

Except we don't really have ultimate free speech. Libel, Slander. There are rules for what's acceptable. I don't see how we can't just lob "fucking fags should be purged" into one of those categories.

There is a saying, your rights end where other persons begins. If your speech causes harm to others, you are doing a crime. If it does not, then you are not. Saying that "i dont like black people" does not cause them harm, it does however make you a racist. Two are not the same.

EXACTLY!!!

I mean it can't be that hard.

People can't just wave "freedom of speech" or "1st amendment" around as "Get out of jail free" cards when people call them out on it.

 

[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.

Not in the least bit. If you loosen it so ridiculously then anyone's a bigot who doesn't tolerate murder. You say 'by definition', but you provide no definition. It's kind of like the people who say 'technical' when it's really not.

I did not provide the definition because you have, at your fingertips, a comprehensive English dictionary. Still, a <a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigoted?s=t>bigot is defined as a person who is intolerant of other ideas. Confronting a bigot over their position on an issue inherently shows a desire to alter their position on the subject or, in other words, shows intolerance. Given that you are being intolerant of an idea, you arrive neatly at a position where you, by confronting a bigot, meet the dictionary definition of bigotry.

That isn't to say that you'd somehow be wrong for confronting a bigot - simply that you need a better reason to do so than "They're a bigot". As luck would have it, the actual tested extent of freedom of speech and the press tends to follow this notion. So long as the position you espouse does not harm another person, you are within your legal right to express that idea. And even then there is lots of grey area - it is, for example, generally legal to harm another through the expression of an idea so long as it is true.

Or, to put it another way, it does not show any real nobility of character if you merely tolerate the expression of an idea you agree with; such nobility requires you also tolerate ideas that conflict with your own.

The way to be free of that nonsense is to say I'm not tolerant for the sake of tolerance. I'm tolerant of X for so and so reasons(so and so reasons usually being along the lines of "Well there's nothing I can see that's actually wrong with it"). Those do not apply to Y(generally because Y is harmful in some manner to people for no good reason). Well at least it would get them to stop if they actually based it off of anything you said or did, or logic at all, as opposed to using this argument as a convenient excuse.

'Tolerant' seems silly as a general word. You're tolerant of specific things, not just tolerant in general.

That doesn't work since what you actually are attempting to do is subvert the definition of the word <a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerate?s=t>tolerant.

Now, what you espouse certainly approaches how people actually operate in the real world, but that does not undermine the simple fact that the moment you become intolerant (that is, you become unwilling to accept an idea that you disagree with), that places you squarely into the territory of a bigot. I agree that there are ideas where bigotry is socially acceptable - it's just that following such a course still leaves you as a bigot yourself. As such, unless your argument against the position is stronger than "I won't tolerate your intolerance", you're probably just as well served letting that particular dog lie. Intolerance is no more likely to change intolerance because of your righteous indignation than it is because of the other persons.

 

[Strazdas]

EXACTLY!!!

I mean it can't be that hard.

People can't just wave "freedom of speech" or "1st amendment" around as "Get out of jail free" cards when people call them out on it.

I dont think you understand what i am trying to say. People have a right to free speech. that means they have a right to have any opinion they want and express it. they however cant do any action that harms others, which libel is. However it works both ways, and same as a NeoNazi cant encourage forceful shut up of your view, you cant encourage forceful shut up of theirs. Instead what you have with hate speech category is that one side is alowed free speech, while the other side isnt, making it a double standard.
Noone is saying its get out of jail free card, it is however a thing that allows you to have an opinion even if it does not coicide with majority. People can call them out on it. however they must do it in civilized matter. "your point is wrong because X" is ok, "omg shut up you nazi" is not.

 

[KissingSunlight]

The problem with having an "I Hate Bigots!" philosophy is that it's a cheap way of ignoring the other points of view of an issue. If you come across someone who disagree with you, but you are not clever enough to counter that person's rational argument. All you do is to call them a "bigot" and ignore them. I've seen this happen way too many times online.

The problem with having this attitude in real life. A person is more complex than a personal opinion on social issues. For example, what if you knew someone who was homophobic, but volunteers regularly to help the homeless. Is that person evil (and deserves to be hated), because that person have anti-gay opinions?

There is a big difference between disagreeing with a bigot and hating them.