Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Big Black Dog]

Got mixed feelings about this thing called "tolerance". i believe too much "tolerance" is exactly why we find ourselves in the shape America is in. People are afraid to say something is "bullshit" when it clearly is. This anything goes kind of world we live in now is getting pretty tiresome to me. I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand and some boundaries set. We are a country with no boundaries now days. It's what's wrong with society.

 

[Asclepias]

But what others? Who would you trust to be your censor? Hunacy? Me? Rush Limbaugh? Martin Bashir? Who?

Therein lies the paradox. Until someone or something can be appointed Supreme Censor then you can only go on your beliefs as to what constitutes a dangerous expression of thought. The only safe way is to be intolerant of intolerant people.

LOL! Wouldn't it be easier to tolerate them and let their ideas and attitudes survive or fail on their own?

It would if those ideas were truly original and no one else would pick them up. Humans are not made up that way. Those ideas will never die and the law of seasons will give them new strength when their time cycles back around.

 

[Asclepias]

So, you would have supported those who wanted abolitionists to be silenced? I cannot believe that.

I'm Black. I would not agree with abolitionists being silenced.

I'm white and I would not either. But, the slave holder would have felt that the abolitionist should not be not be tolerated if there is a possibility that their wish to free the slaves would influence others to end the system and/or cause slave uprisings. THAT'S what your point of view is really supporting. We shouldn't censor the thoughts and opinions of others, for only when they are expressed can they stand or fall in the court of public opinion. THAT'S why we should tolerate opinions we don't agree with in life.

You cant be afraid of uprisings if you are not enslaving people. You dont get to be intolerant first while harming others then have an issue with others shutting down your intolerance via uprisings. You are fair game if you started the intolerance.

 

[hunarcy]

Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible. As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.

Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act. You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea. Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.

I SO disagree with that. It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was. Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm Black. I would not agree with abolitionists being silenced.

I'm white and I would not either. But, the slave holder would have felt that the abolitionist should not be not be tolerated if there is a possibility that their wish to free the slaves would influence others to end the system and/or cause slave uprisings. THAT'S what your point of view is really supporting. We shouldn't censor the thoughts and opinions of others, for only when they are expressed can they stand or fall in the court of public opinion. THAT'S why we should tolerate opinions we don't agree with in life.

You cant be afraid of uprisings if you are not enslaving people. You dont get to be intolerant first while harming others then have an issue with others shutting down your intolerance via uprisings. You are fair game if you started the intolerance.

Did you purposely miss the point? I had hoped that you would see that by being tolerant, we don't allow anyone to be censored, which facilitates the free circulation of ideas. It's censorship and intolerance that supported the status quo of slave holding America.

 

[hunarcy]

We are a country with no boundaries now days. It's what's wrong with society.

Perhaps that's true, but that's not a result of being tolerant. It's a result of not standing up and persuading others why you feel your position is correct. People don't do that now because they feel intimidated by the intolerance of those who don't agree with them.

 

[oldfart]

As far as the intolerance towards holding a bigoted position goes that won't go away either. And even it when it does it will simply be replaced by a different one because there are some who are so insecure they need some way to make themselves feel "superior" to others. This is a part of human nature and try as we might it will take far longer to "evolve" than any of us will be around to observe.

When it comes to being "dangerous" I don't see it that way at all. Short of censorship freedom of speech is the bigots best friend. And no, I don't advocate censorship because the appropriate response to bigotry is public ridicule in my opinion. We the People shape our own society to reflect who we are. Demographics show that we are changing into a more diverse and accepting society than before. Yes, there are throwbacks and reactionaries and ugly incidents because no change is without turmoil. But it is all part of the process.

There is a huge problem of false equivalence in equating those who oppose virulent hatred, violence, and overt expressions of intolerance with those acts themselves. In my jobs as a teacher and as a tax professional over the last 45 years (mostly in Mississippi), I have met a wide spectrum of opinion. Since I generally withhold my own opinion in a teaching or business setting, lots of people assume that I must believe as they do. So I think my sample is pretty statistically reliable.

Most people form opinions about other groups of people at an early age based on what they observe and those opinions are hard to modify. I don't believe it is useful to try to change how people think on these matters. But we have rather successfully altered what people say and do in normal business and social situations. Expressions of overt violent racism, for example commenting on the need for a lynching, have become rare. It is no longer acceptable to say such things in public in most places.

This has generated generational changes, but they are very uneven. Racial and ethnic prejudice seems on a decline, but the violent extreme is targeting more groups. Greater acceptance of gays and lesbians is increasing dramatically., but prejudice based on class and economic status is rapidly growing. Overall, I think the trend has been progress, but we seem to be always one economic downturn away from the brownshirts and night riders. And yes, I have encountered both in the unadorned original as well as the modern wannabes.

I agree that "the appropriate response to bigotry is public ridicule". In the long term it is the only workable solution. My fear is that the Right has developed a set of beliefs and mode of expression where public ridicule is not effective, just as reason is not effective in breaking a closed logical system.

It was not always so. In my youth most of the crazies were on the left, and people like William F Buckley Jr and Milton Friedman founded the modern conservative movement through an appeal to logic. But over 50 years the left has become more pragmatic and circumspect while the right grew shriller and more intolerant; eventually abandoning logic, reason, and appeals to common interest for appeals to bigotry and an intellectual strait jacket. Noticeably, the right is now drumming out each successive generation of thinkers from the movement for not being sufficiently radical just as purists tried to do on the left fifty years ago.

I agree that there has been progress, but I warn that progress is neither rapid not irreversible. Dark days can come again. What progress that has been made was bought at a terrible human price of stunted and ruined lives, and a greater price lies before us if further progress is to be made.

 

[Foxfyre]

We are a country with no boundaries now days. It's what's wrong with society.

Perhaps that's true, but that's not a result of being tolerant. It's a result of not standing up and persuading others why you feel your position is correct. People don't do that now because they feel intimidated by the intolerance of those who don't agree with them.

This is the thing. Oldfart's post was very well stated--one of the better of the day--but I disagree with him emphatically. He sees the Left as the pragmatic and circumspect ones and the Right as the crazies. I'm pretty much the polar opposite of that point of view. But if I was going to debate the topic, I would choose him for an opponent in a heartbeat because it would probably be a good debate.

BBD's point of view is that we are a country with no boundaries. He and I are much closer aligned politically than Oldfart and I are, but I disagree with his point of view that there are no boundaries.

I think new boundaries have been set but they are all in the realm of the crazies--those who the guy in the video described as supporting everything that is wrong/evil while a new intolerance has been promoted for everything that is right/good. A Sandra Fluke who wants the government to mandate that somebody give her free contraceptives is applauded while a Dan Cathy who promotes traditional marriage is branded a homophobic bigot and is targeted to be materially punished. Attitudes and policy that promotes teenage promiscuity is encouraged while calls for abstinance are scorned and denigrated. We could use example after example after example and I don't want to get sidetracked on those two things.

Tolerance means that ALL points of views can be expressed with impunity. That way people have all perspectives from which to make their choices. Tolerant people trust those who are fully informed and educated to make better choices than those who are indoctrinated with intolerance and who do their damndest to shut up anybody with a different point of view.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

My take:


Alone the word "tolerance" has some disturbing side-currents: the word means that you only accept a person or an idea as far as you absolutely must, but not one step further. Not much of a way to live, eh?

I would say that respect and dialogue are much better words. You see, you can still allow people to be what they are and even learn to respect them and maybe, just maybe, open a dialogue with them, even if you don't like them or what they stand for.

Take a look at US politics: at current, our nation is firmly divided into two camps: RED and BLUE, with not much tolerance between them, and a lot of untruths being told. Of course, one man's untruth could be the next man's hero, but that could be a topic for another day.

But there is no doubt that the acrimony between the two large ideologies is doing some damage to the fabric of our Union- for those ideologies have followings in the social, cultural and financial realms of the land.

Well, those are some of my ideas, just for starters. Have no idea if you are going to tolerate them or not. On the last thread (since you decided to mention it, I suppose I can, as well, eh?), sure didn't look like you were very interested in listening at all, except to people likeminded to you. Perhaps it will be different this time. Wait and see. Thanks for starting the thread.

 

[hunarcy]

We are a country with no boundaries now days. It's what's wrong with society.

Perhaps that's true, but that's not a result of being tolerant. It's a result of not standing up and persuading others why you feel your position is correct. People don't do that now because they feel intimidated by the intolerance of those who don't agree with them.

This is the thing. Oldfart's post was very well stated--one of the better of the day--but I disagree with him emphatically. He sees the Left as the pragmatic and circumspect ones and the Right as the crazies. I'm pretty much the polar opposite of that point of view. But if I was going to debate the topic, I would choose him for an opponent in a heartbeat because it would probably be a good debate.

BBD's point of view is that we are a country with no boundaries. He and I are much closer aligned politically than Oldfart and I are, but I disagree with his point of view that there are no boundaries.

I think new boundaries have been set but they are all in the realm of the crazies--those who the guy in the video described as supporting everything that is wrong/evil while a new intolerance has been promoted for everything that is right/good. A Sandra Fluke who wants the government to mandate that somebody give her free contraceptives is applauded while a Dan Cathy who promotes traditional marriage is branded a homophobic bigot and is targeted to be materially punished. Attitudes and policy that promotes teenage promiscuity is encouraged while calls for abstinance are scorned and denigrated. We could use example after example after example and I don't want to get sidetracked on those two things.

Tolerance means that ALL points of views can be expressed with impunity. That way people have all perspectives from which to make their choices. Tolerant people trust those who are fully informed and educated to make better choices than those who are indoctrinated with intolerance and who do their damndest to shut up anybody with a different point of view.

I felt Oldfart's post was an well disguised statement of intolerance. He focused on the Right's move toward "purity" while ignoring the Left has done the same thing. There are few "Blue Dog" Democrats left and if you don't think that was the result of a conscious effort, look at what happened to Joe Liebermann who was deemed to not be "Left" enough. So, based on what he perceived as one side's move from the center, he wants to portray them as being intolerant. That's his right and he's free to make that argument, but because he didn't acknowledge that the Left has as well, I don't think he was being tolerant at all.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We are a country with no boundaries now days. It's what's wrong with society.

Perhaps that's true, but that's not a result of being tolerant. It's a result of not standing up and persuading others why you feel your position is correct. People don't do that now because they feel intimidated by the intolerance of those who don't agree with them.

I would like to point out that not every viewpoint, or position, as you put it, has to be "correct", imo.

I do believe it is not always a matter of "right or wrong" for everything in life. That kind of stuff only leads to rigidity.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We can never really know what people think. Since people lie readily, especially when put on the spot, expecting them to tell you the truth about what or how they think is perhaps unrealistic. And since how people behave is based on how they think, asking people to change their thoughts on things by accepting another's thoughts is asking them to change who they are at their very heart. (was a better formed thought in my head)

A favorite novel of mine is called "Eon" by Greg Bear and features a future version of the human race making contact with the current one having travelled backwards in time. The future humans have a political system much like our's and the point is made that there are often multiple solutions to a problem. But trying to address problems requires consensus on a course of action, and that's where political conflicts can arise. But when such conflicts come about, it isn't that some believe the others are bad or evil, just that their way of solving a problem is preferable or better.

As with accepting other people's ideas. Before expecting them to accept our's, we need to be able to accept their's. Without that simple willingness to accept there may be more than one way to solve problems, all we achieve is never-ending animosity as those we're trying to convince of our way, insists their way is better. Hence how good politicians seek compromise. Whereas bad ones cling to the extremes.

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

My take:


Alone the word "tolerance" has some disturbing side-currents: the word means that you only accept a person or an idea as far as you absolutely must, but not one step further. Not much of a way to live, eh?

I would say that respect and dialogue are much better words. You see, you can still allow people to be what they are and even learn to respect them and maybe, just maybe, open a dialogue with them, even if you don't like them or what they stand for.

Take a look at US politics: at current, our nation is firmly divided into two camps: RED and BLUE, with not much tolerance between them, and a lot of untruths being told. Of course, one man's untruth could be the next man's hero, but that could be a topic for another day.

But there is no doubt that the acrimony between the two large ideologies is doing some damage to the fabric of our Union- for those ideologies have followings in the social, cultural and financial realms of the land.

Well, those are some of my ideas, just for starters. Have no idea if you are going to tolerate them or not. On the last thread (since you decided to mention it, I suppose I can, as well, eh?), sure didn't look like you were very interested in listening at all, except to people likeminded to you. Perhaps it will be different this time. Wait and see. Thanks for starting the thread.

I'm sure you don't think I was interested in listening to people except likeminded like me. But had you bothered to read that thread at all, you would see how silly that statement is. But do you have a right to see it that way? It's okay with me. Believe what you wish. Just don't presume to misquote me and/or mischaracterize my position here like you did there, and we'll get along fine.

As for the definition of words, I explained what I mean by tolerance. I'm sorry you don't like the word, but it is a different word to me than respect or dialogue. I don't have to respect you one bit or want any dialogue with you whatsoever in order to be tolerant and allow you your opinion and allow you to be who you are.

That form of tolerance most of those, and even some on the right, have a really tough time with. But that is why I started the thread so we can explore what is included in the concept. And no, we don't all have to agree.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)

Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.

But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else? When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers? Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?

Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?

Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?

 

[hunarcy]

Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.

But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else? When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers? Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?

Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?

Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?

Still trying those troll tactics? Off to ignoreland with you!

 

[Foxfyre]

Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.

But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else? When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers? Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?

Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?

Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?

No, I rarely have links for questions I ask. But here are some links I had noted in my files:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas.html

Now perhaps you would address the point I was making instead of getting all exorcised over the examples I used to illustrate it?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Got mixed feelings about this thing called "tolerance". i believe too much "tolerance" is exactly why we find ourselves in the shape America is in. People are afraid to say something is "bullshit" when it clearly is. This anything goes kind of world we live in now is getting pretty tiresome to me. I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand and some boundaries set. We are a country with no boundaries now days. It's what's wrong with society.

Well, physically (geographically), our nation has very specific boundaries. Perhaps you are referring to cultural or moral boundaries. And exactly who is supposed to set those boundaries?


IMO, respect and dialogue tend to tear down boundaries and help us to find commonality. Sadly, not all people want to find commonality.

What a shame, for when all is said and done, we are all Homo Sapiens, you know.

 

[BDBoop]

But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else? When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers? Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?

Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?

Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?

No, I rarely have links for questions I ask.

The alleged Nancy Pelosi statement. Do you have a link.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible. As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.

Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act. You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea. Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.

I SO disagree with that. It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was. Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.

Do you mean slavery in the US or slavery in general? 2 different things. I am intolerant of the opinion people should be enslaved. Am I trampling someone's right to life and liberty? Even if I was the person wanting slavery forfeited their rights as soon as they trampled someone elses right to life and liberty by enslaving them. Thats a perfect example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible. As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.

Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act. You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea. Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.

I SO disagree with that. It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was. Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.

Do you mean slavery in the US or slavery in general? 2 different things. I am intolerant of the opinion people should be enslaved. Am I trampling someone's right to life and liberty? Even if I was the person wanting slavery forfeited their rights as soon as they trampled someone elses right to life and liberty by enslaving them. Thats a perfect example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.

Amen.