Queen Michael said:
I think it's more about accepting their right to their opinions. You can still criticize them.
Not how they use it. It's used as a defense against criticism.
Lieju said:
For example, someone criticising someone's sexuality =/= someone criticising someone's opinions on someone's sexuality.
Or worse, someone saying homosexuals should be rounded up =/= calling that person a bigot.
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.
I'm not sure that falls under "minding your own business," though. Basically, people should be at the very least tolerant that you're playing video games. By asserting that games aren't art, or by talking about how they lead to murder, or attempting legislation, they're already not minding their business. They've nosed into yours.
Let me use a slightly different example here: I'm an atheist. I don't go around posting things on Facebook about how there's no God and Christians (as an example, because the people I'm about to mention are Christian) are stupid. Now, when people on my Facebook page start posting crap complaining about other religions (mostly Muslims, because they're the devil du jour) or atheists, I will respond. If they want me to mind my own business, they shouldn't be posting things about it. They also then shouldn't whine that I'm being inconsiderate or intolerant when they were the ones who fired the shot across my bow.
I mean, I'm already watching people post things complaining about how it's not "Happy Holidays," but rather "Merry Christmas." And even though I celebrate Christmas with my family, this still annoys me because you're being a dick to everyone else. But I was minding my own business. And if they minded theirs, instead of trying to dictate what people should say around the holidays (of which there are more than one), there would be no conflict.
That, to me, is the heart of the whole "mind your own business" thing. Once they come into my yard, it is my business.
wombat_of_war said:
sigh it would be nice if people would just use some common sense being tolerant doesnt automatically mean you have to accept everything and everyone. if someone is being a nasty, vile, asshole call them out on it.
More to the point, though, tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing.
I don't really care if racists like or dislike black people, or homophobes dislike gays. I'm never going to try and force people to accept things that lie outside their prejudices. But I do expect us to be able to coexist in a society and not be dictated by their prejudices and fears. I mean, it'd be nice if everyone accepted everyone else, but it's not feasible. A more realistic goal is tolerance, as in "I don't like your kind, but I'm not going to try and have you rounded up, executed, or legislated out of existence."
All I want out of 'tolerance' is the right to, you know, live and stuff. I want the same rights and freedoms everyone else is afforded. I don't give a flying fish if people dislike me, or even hate me.
RikuoAmero said:
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.
But that doesn't' address what he's talking about. He brings up the example of accepting hate speech. And there's no mandate to do so. they have the right to speak, and we have the right to criticise, as you've already mentioned. They then try and argue that we must be tolerant of their intolerance, and therefore we can't criticise them. But, as you've already pointed out, freedom of speech is not freedom from the speech of others. I've supported the right of the Westboro Baptist Church and others to speak their horseshit, even though I specifically am part of a group that they hate and slur. But nobody should be forced to shut up because someone pulls the "you must tolerate us and our intolerant ways!"
That's hypocrisy in action.
)
