What does being "tolerant" mean accepting bigotry?

[BreakfastMan]

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.

 

[Queen Michael]

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

 

[Thaluikhain]

Should I not call out their vile shit as vile shit, and let them know that they are wrong for holding such views?

No, of course not.

Er, assuming those are views I myself share, of course.

Some people think they are being wonderfully clever and scoring a devastating and original point when they tell people to tolerate their intolerance.

Now, there are some legitimate issues with being allowed to hold an opinion blurring into being allowed to act on it. There's also the one about using your free speech to criticise what someone has said with theirs being interpreted as criticism of them having free speech.

But, generally, I don't think it's that innocent. Usually it just seems to be a way of saying "Shut up!" with some pretence of a justification behind it.

 

[Lieju]

It tends to be false equivalency.

For example, someone criticising someone's sexuality =/= someone criticising someone's opinions on someone's sexuality.

It depends on how much someone is pushing their beliefs on other people.
I think video-games are great, but I'm fine with there being people who don't play games.
But if they start spreading lies on games (like how they make children crazy murderers) or try to limit my rights (such as trying to legistlate so that I couldn't buy M-rated games anymore) then I'd have problem with them.

 

[RikuoAmero]

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.

Free speech is not free speech unless speech that you don't like/makes you uncomfortable etc, is allowed. To put it simply, imagine you are standing outside on a box, and you are saying "All people should be equal under the law, and be guaranteed the same rights as everybody else". That's your speech. Now, imagine a Neo Nazi standing on a box and saying "Jews shouldn't be equal". I would let him say it. I however, would not be tolerant of his ACTIONS. If you were a Jew and the Neo Nazi were to step over and push you off your box and attempt to silence your speech because he doesn't like it, I would step in and stop him...just as I would step in and stop you if you were to stop the Neo Nazi's speech.

 

[Realitycrash]

Should I not call out their vile shit as vile shit, and let them know that they are wrong for holding such views?

No, of course not.

Er, assuming those are views I myself share, of course.

Some people think they are being wonderfully clever and scoring a devastating and original point when they tell people to tolerate their intolerance.

Now, there are some legitimate issues with being allowed to hold an opinion blurring into being allowed to act on it. There's also the one about using your free speech to criticise what someone has said with theirs being interpreted as criticism of them having free speech.

But, generally, I don't think it's that innocent. Usually it just seems to be a way of saying "Shut up!" with some pretence of a justification behind it.

It's fully possible to be logically consistent when one supports intolerance of intolerance. We must just have a clause which claims that one must be tolerant of those that are themselves playing by the same rules, i.e those that are tolerant.
So those that are intolerant can not argue that people can not be intolerant of them without breaking their own principles, as said intolerant people are not consistent with their principles.

 

[stormeris]

The tolerant individual is by definition intolerant of intolerance.
That is, my friend, the Paradox of tolerance.

I'm an intolerant person, i simply learned to keep it to myself in public.
And i'm not planning on changing.
.
.
.
It's in my nature

 

[wulf3n]

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.

While were at it lets round them up an put them in internment camps. There we can teach them how wrong they are and how our beliefs are superior to theirs in every way possible. If that means some have to be "put down" so be it.

FYI I was not serious. Should be obvious but this is the internet.

We tolerate the beliefs [not actions] of others so that we can be assured that our own beliefs won't see us persecuted legally by a governmental body.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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.

While were at it lets round them up an put them in internment camps. There we can teach them how wrong they are and how our beliefs are superior to theirs in every way possible. If that means some have to be "put down" so be it.

FYI I was not serious. Should be obvious but this is the internet.

We tolerate the beliefs [not actions] of others so that we can be assured that our own beliefs won't see us persecuted legally by a governmental body.

I think this is where you lose most Europeans.

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).

I think it has to do with how laws are passed in our respective countries (in the US law is usually retrospective, very specific and uses past examples, while in the EU it's wider-encompassing and corporate lobbying is usually frowned upon).

 

[somonels]

It tends to be false equivalency.

For example, someone criticising someone's sexuality =/= someone criticising someone's opinions on someone's sexuality.

No it isn't. You describe overly zealous activism - which is named appropriately as many of them feel the need to be ACTIVE even if turning into another belligerent and escalating the conflict. Tolerance is more about minding your own business. Should they partake in an argument it would be to prevent escalation and dissipate the participants.

 

[Palademon]

Yes, people have said something along those lines and it annoys me.

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.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to say, not the freedom from criticism.
My freedom of speech means I can say what you just said is stupid, and vice versa.

You don't get to be free to be intolerant, because not tolerating intolerance, isn't intolerance.
It's merely saying your intolerance is bad.
It's not like your opinion is protected. No one's is.

There is no 'agree to disagree'. Bigotry is wrong.

 

[Vareoth]

I think it comes down to how you try to engage someone's opinion. If you use logical debate to dissuade someone from holding an, in your mind, obviously flawed point of view it's fine. No one's opinion is or should protected from criticism.

If you use force to remove an unwanted opinion from being held at all it is not only wrong but it is also extremely counter productive.

Use of such force is warranted, however, if someones opinion manifests in a real world impeding sense. For example this could be trough active discrimination in job markets to calls for violence and systematic repression of a minority. There are some grey areas in this point of view however, such as when someones opinion is crossing the metaphorical line or what kind of force is appropriate to use is in what circumstance.

 

[HardkorSB]

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.

What?

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?

Tolerating doesn't mean that you can't criticize it. Tolerating means that you aren't forcing people with different views than you to adapt to your views.

 

[drthmik]

If you are intolerant of the intolerant than you yourself are intolerant and a hypocrite on top of it.

many say "Those intolerant people should just shut up or BE shut up."
yet in this statement there is profound intolerance in the beliefs of others just because they disagree with you.

In my experience; those who proclaim "Tolerance" to be the highest good have been the most intolerant, cruel & dismissive people I've ever met, shunning, mocking and decrying every view but their own.

 

[Silvanus]

Being a tolerant person does not mean accepting bigotry. That line of (overly literal) logic accomplishes nothing, other than allowing hate speech and ignorance to proliferate unchallenged.

To me, the very most defining aspect of being a "tolerant" person is tolerance for those characteristics that people cannot change about themselves. Race, sex, sexuality, etc.

Of course, tolerance for somebody's lifestyle, diet, religious views or political opinions is important, too, insofar as you find it relatively harmless. If somebody's political opinions are dead against a certain race, or a certain sexuality, though? We are under no obligation to respect hate.


I always found the "tolerance means you must tolerate intolerance" line of reasoning to be tedious, pointless, and overly literal. Just as the saying, "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither", does not bloody mean that Ben Franklin was against liberty.

Tolerating doesn't mean that you can't criticize it. Tolerating means that you aren't forcing people with different views than you to adapt to your views.

Tolerance means a little more than that. Most would agree that insulting & degrading language on the basis of race or sexuality is "intolerant", for example, though it goes beyond criticism, and is not forcing others to adapt to your views.

In my experience; those who proclaim "Tolerance" to be the highest good have been the most intolerant, cruel & dismissive people I've ever met, shunning, mocking and decrying every view but their own.

You must have never read a British tabloid, then.

 

[Fox12]

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.

You don't have to accept them. You do have to tolerate them, however, because they have a right to free speech. Assuming they're not doing anything illegal that is. In that situation you just have to use reason and logic to defeat their arguments. You probably won't convince bigots to change their beliefs, but you aren't trying to influence them. You're trying to influence the more open minded individuals watching you argue. So yes, you have every right to directly confront a point of view that you consider immoral.

 

[Lieju]

It tends to be false equivalency.

For example, someone criticising someone's sexuality =/= someone criticising someone's opinions on someone's sexuality.

No it isn't. You describe overly zealous activism - which is named appropriately as many of them feel the need to be ACTIVE even if turning into another belligerent and escalating the conflict. Tolerance is more about minding your own business. Should they partake in an argument it would be to prevent escalation and dissipate the participants.

I don't really know what you're talking about.

Are you saying that criticising people's attitudes is the same as criticising someone's sexuality?

Also I'm not sure if I should take issue with 'tolerance is more about minding your own business.'
To take video-games, I'm not going to force anyone to play them, but I'm also not going to actively hide the fact I like them, or be ashamed I'm playing Pokemon on the bus or something.
And neither will I stay silent if someone claims video-games can't be art, or if we are discussing media and forms of expression and games aren't mentioned alongside books and movies.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

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.

Unfortunately it's usually not that simple.

Picking out groups like Neo-Nazis and Klansmen it's easy because they are so nearly universally accepted as "bad guys", and so not accepting their beliefs, and even speaking out against their beliefs and practices, is very acceptable and doesn't run into a ton of opposition.

Where it gets complex is when it runs headfirst into cultures and religions that run counter to your belief system. So, for example, you can say that the legalized discrimination and mistreatment of women in many middle-eastern countries is bigoted and wrong, but then someone can counter by saying "well that's their culture, what right do you have to declare your culture better than theirs?"

What angers me about the abuse of words like "bigotry" or "hate" is the way they're often used to make massive assumptions about people and jump to ridiculous conclusions about their personal beliefs. Some real-life examples I've heard include (paraphrased):
"You are against abortion? That's because you hate women"
"You thought the jury came to the correct verdict in the Martin/Zimmerman trial? You're a racist/bigoted against blacks"
"You thought the Muslim community center near ground zero in New York wasn't a good idea? You hate Muslims."
"You support Israel? You hate Palestinians"
"You support Palestine? You're a Nazi."

Etc. etc.