In another thread, there was mention of tolerance, and whether or not it should be applied to intolerance. Essentially, should we, as human beings, tolerate people whom are sexist, racist, bigoted, or otherwise a-holes? To me the answer is "yes." This does not mean that we need to support them, speak terribly well of their views, or invite them over to the family dinner to celebrate the nominal birthday of our Lord and Savior which just so happens to coincide with the timing of traditional seasonal pagan holidays. We don't even have to particularly listen to them, though I think such exercise can be useful from time to time given the proper attitude to withstand it. No, I'm merely saying we should tolerate them, allow them to have and share with those willing to listen, their views without trying to actively prevent them from speaking out short of abiding by the common laws regarding threats, incitement of crimes, etc. For me, and many others, we find racist attitudes disgusting, inherently wrong, and immoral or unethical. It flies in the face of much of modern conventional wisdom, but more than that, it sets aside logic for the sake of hatred and vileness. It gives little room for nuance, learning, or appreciation of diversity. All in the name of, what I consider, misguided general-isms. Vagueries and ignorance, purposeful or otherwise. At the same time, the arguments of disgust, immorality, "wrong-ness" have also been applied to homosexuality, to inter-racial sexual relations, to belief in a given religion or to atheistic beliefs. It's been applied to the idea that the Earth is not the center of our Universe, or even our Solar System. While I would most certainly like to believe that Humanity, as a whole or amongst the multitude of cultures, would continue along with the ethics and morality I believe in, I cannot say it will. While part of me would like to believe that stamping out the expression of "wrong" beliefs would end those beliefs I know it would not, and that even if it did the attempt itself would feel "wrong" and "disgusting" to me just as much or perhaps even more than those fools that believe "The Jews" are trying to take over the world towards evil and nefarious ends (seriously, it's just a couple mice, SNARF!), or that a woman's place is in the kitchen making her man a sammich. And that's not even getting into the potential for abuse of such actions to sanction against what is deemed "disgusting" by the public and the makers of law. I do not believe that all ideologies, all political movements, or all religions are equal. But I do believe it is important to preserve the rights of people that believe those "lesser" things, and ensure they can express them properly and without hindrance (but not necessarily required to support their expression or give them a platform). Well, just how I feel on the matter. Feel free to disagree; I might not support opposing viewpoints on this issue but I will do my best to tolerate them. Eh? Okay, I've got that off my chest. Have fun arguing with/yelling at me and/or each other if you want.
I am not even sure what "tolerate" means in this regard. I believe the argument over "tolerance" is one that doesn't have practical ramifications and is just something that has been invented by the right to vilify the left and allow themselves the luxury of criticism while pretending to be on some imaginary moral high ground: "I am just standing up for my beliefs but you are being a whiny intolerant SJW." Clearly, people are free to think and say what they want to some degree for the most part (there are valid hate crime laws for being grossly out of line or specifically intended to hurt someone, etc.), but their words are not free from critique or criticism. But in reality both sides of the political spectrum seeks to legislate their beliefs in some ways, except that, IMO, the left largely wants legislation that prevents people from discriminating, while the right wants legislation that maintains the freedom to discriminate (and both have valid backing, to my mind). But it's not as though the left is arguing for "TOLERATE ALL THE THINGS" and the right is arguing for "INTOLERANCE" which is what each side incorrectly labels the other. Ultimately, discussing or even arguing against someone's opinion POV is not "intolerance" but seems to have been misconstrued as such by many.
Pic doesn't show up foo. I'm too lazy to click it, but to respond. @Ohmin I basically agree with everything you said, it mirrors my own feelings on those subjects.
This is exactly correct, or at least, I agree with it. In fact, both Democrats and Republicans (and I'm sure the other parties would do the same if they were in power...) can be said to do both all the time. I think he was more just taking the chance to fully divulge his opinion on the subject of "tolerance of intolerance", rather than making a statement about the other thread's discussion itself.
Sure, but if you are going to talk about this subject, the political ramifications of it does matter. In this case, for example, I would say, "You can be as racist of a person as you want, but what we shouldn't tolerate is when that racism is used to push legislation or policy that targets or harms a particular group." This functionally tolerates the racism in of itself (I mean, I will try and argue with you why you are wrong, but I am not going to argue for legislation to stop you from thinking such things), but what it doesn't tolerate is using those attitudes to disenfranchise people. The problem lies in where people often don't just say stuff to say stuff... they are trying to push a particular POV or agenda and to make an issue - particularly when politicians do it. At the same time, we should also be concerned about the ramifications of what people say having an effect on the working or public environment that others live/work in, as well as effect on children. So yes, tolerate... to some degree. But it isn't a black and white issue.
I would agree with all of that, I think Ohmin would too. Most of the people on here that are more Conservative would tend to agree as well (My opinion, of course), even if it doesn't seem to be clear that they do. I'm certain they would oppose (most, hopefully all) legislation that is pushed for intolerant reasons (such as your example), while they would support legislation to give that person the freedom to express their intolerance and to be intolerant (again, to a degree as you said). Obviously, if someone breaks another law by being intolerant, most people won't care about whether we should tolerate their intolerance, we'll be focused on legal justice. I think it's really where we draw the line/s (because it's more grey than black and white, as you said), that people tend to differ. Just how much freedom are we willing to allow/disallow people for the sake of freedom vs. security. It's not an easy thing to figure out, and I honestly feel that no one really has the best answer (except for me, obviously). Moderation in everything, even this kinda stuff (though I tend to err more on the side of tolerating intolerance, I still try to moderate it).
I know. I think most people would also agree with Ohmin said above. As I said, I think the whole "tolerate intolerance" is largely a manufactured issue created by the right to "defend" themselves from being criticized for voicing certain thoughts and opinions - and discussions/criticism of an opinion in the vein of what Ohmin said in the OP isn't, IMO, intolerance at all nor trying to take away people's rights.
In the most extreme forms, the left and right are both intolerable. They both demand to be tolerant to the extreme (one for the beliefs of others, the other for their own beliefs). The absolutism of it all irks me. Cause somehow that's how it ends up being often, or referred to when these kind of topics pop up. As usual, a healthy medium would be nice.
lets get specific. gay marriage. tolerating homosexuality right? k, that's easy. baker who refuses to cater gay wedding. says it violates his Christian beliefs. (feel free to substitute Muslim baker, same thing) is the baker being intolerant? if he is forced to cater the wedding or face a penalty then aren't people being intolerant of the baker's beliefs? should the government force the baker in some way?
depends on how much value you put on those believes whats stopping me from believing in a religion where I hate whites or blacks and refuse service to them
good question. i personally think its far too easy to claim 'its against my religion'. but how do you define what is a religion in a legal sense without then having state sanctioned religions? we have a rule against that here. its a toughy. perhaps that means there is no role for government here and you should let the people 'police themselves' in this instance. but then that could lead to persecution of the minority. im not sure of the right answer.
well heres some food for thought http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/0...-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ this is just a quick google search of 'baker gay wedding'. don't look for any hidden agenda in the links i picked.
i think it's the baker's right to deny service. i think it's the couple's right to broadcast that denial, so long as they don't lie about the interaction. i think that the media for the last few years has relied overly much on sensationalization of really rather straightforward or boring topics, so long as they can touch on an emotional hot button for some group or another
well there isn't any religion (that im aware of) that says being black is a sin. and its not like the baker refused to sell them doughnuts. he refused to participate in their wedding, which his religion labels sinful. its the wedding part that i think makes it a little bit different.
it is. and in our more enlightened modern times, what do you think if word got out that a bakery refused to do business with a party due to their race? twitter would light up, all the various social medias would light up, and that would very quickly bleed into the televised stuff. it would be a nationwide boycott of a bakery that previously no one had heard of, which makes it possible either/both that various racist establishments or individuals in the country go and out themselves, or that the bakery is shut down because of all the pressure. denial of service for such a trivial thing isn't something i agree with by any means, but my objections to it are based more on data that i don't see in the headlines (and i don't tend to bother reading things that sound like clickbait). if that's the only bakery equipped to do weddings in like 50 mile radius (arbitrary numbers), or if they had been contracted and tried to back out after, or similar, then it gets more and more unreasonable to support them. if they're merely asked whether or not they're open to the idea of helping cater and respond with "no because u queer lmao", then that's shitty of them. i think it's still within legal limits, though (not that that's mine to decide or interpret). it's an unfortunate truth that being shitty is difficult to actually regulate against.
Not sure what would happen if this happened in Belgium. I can't imagine it happening, but if it did, they'd probably just get sued or the guy would go to another place and that'd be it. Doesn't seem like there'd be such a big fuss about it in the media (which is probably why I haven't heard of similar cases). Belgian media gets wet for different things.
