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

[BDBoop]

I won't contribute to their bottom line, the Evan Sayet's of the world. Not Rush, not Ann, not this guy, nor any like them. People point to Obama as "the great divider" while looking clear past everybody that has been feeding them hate for the past couple of decades.

I thank Fox 'news' for that.

 

[Mac1958]

There are plenty of people that feel like you do. I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.

Here's the difference: I don't want to censor you, I am in no way trying to intimidate you from saying what you're thinking or calling you names or trying to get you fired.

I'm trying to use civility and reason and maturity to change your mind, even if just one tiny little bit. My approach has been consistent:

I have said a zillion times that I want to know who the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't know that if people are attacked when they say things that I don't like, and they will not say those things if they are intimidated. It is then, at that point, that perhaps we can open lines of communication to heal wounds.

Unlike those who have this narcissistic personal need to shout "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever -- knowing quite well that such behavior accomplishes absolutely nothing positive -- I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of trying to calmly change hearts and minds. Those who just want to attack and punish people who dare to say something they don't like -- in America! -- clearly have no such goals.

.

 

[katsteve2012]

I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.

Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler. People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.

I think you make a great point Asclepias, however I would like to add a caveat to stimulate some additional thought.

It is my opinion that there there is a distinct difference between "action" and "reaction".

I believe that what differentiates the two would be that one is a by product of the thought process which takes into account risk factors and circumstances as well as whether the decision to take certain types of "action" is the right thing to do, whereas "reaction" is based more on emotion and primal instinct, and can be driven by the fear of imminent danger or the presence of uncontrolled anger or rage.

Case in point would be the term "temporary insanity" which is often used as a motive for "reaction" in a court of law, and can be considered a valid defense by demonstrating a lack of premeditation in a criminal act.

There have been descriptives by many of Hitlers psychological makeup which range from "insane" to "brilliant", which are all a matter of opinion of course, but the facts as we know them do seem to point to him harboring a firm belief in the inferiority of others, which may have been driven by a deep anger and rage.

What distinguishes the difference between human beings and other species is the ability to rationalize, and make decisions based on factors such as ones personal belief system and their ability to consciously change their belief system in pursuit of personal improvement or through rehabilitation to learn how to control anger and rage which can drive "reactions" to certain stimuli.

So in summary, I would state that short term "tolerance" can be useful in defeating an oppressor by quietly setting a plan into motion to use the oppressors own vulnerability against them. But can only be executed through well thought out "action".

Just my opinion.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think you are being overly dramatic. Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police. However everyone is potentially the thought expression police. You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself. It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.

Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.

And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.

Rush Limbaugh, for example.

Westbrook Baptist Church.

They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.

We have the right to match their volume, effectively.

We HAVE that RIGHT.

I've listened to Rush, off and on, for the last 25 years...

and while I can agree that he does often bloviate excessively...

I've never gotten the sense that he's a hatemonger...

as opposed to an outright asshole like, say, Hannity...

As with all humans, even Rush Limbaugh has moments of clarity and sometimes, just sometimes says something I can agree with. But he ruins alot of those moments of real clarity by just saying stuff that is totally martian, and he only does that to gin up ratings and therefore, make money.

 

[BDBoop]

Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.

And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.

Rush Limbaugh, for example.

Westbrook Baptist Church.

They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.

We have the right to match their volume, effectively.

We HAVE that RIGHT.

I've listened to Rush, off and on, for the last 25 years...

and while I can agree that he does often bloviate excessively...

I've never gotten the sense that he's a hatemonger...

as opposed to an outright asshole like, say, Hannity...

As with all humans, even Rush Limbaugh has moments of clarity and sometimes, just sometimes says something I can agree with. But he ruins alot of those moments of real clarity by just saying stuff that is totally martian, and he only does that to gin up ratings and therefore, make money.

In my estimation, Rush is no better than any other fringe right person on this board. It does not necessarily follow that them having internet access = me reading the verbal vomit they post.

In other words, I'm not willing to take Rush off ignore because someday, he might have something to say which bears repeating.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I want to reiterate two points:

1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should or have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.

2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.

I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.

I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:


Tolerance / intolerance toward people

Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas

They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.

If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me! I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...

 

[G.T.]

Not to say that the op is hyperbole just to be mean, but as a society we are WAY more tolerant today than historically.

Shit, just listen to music watch movies and television. 3/4 of it would not have historically been tolerated.

Being black used to not be tolerated.
Being gay.
Marrying interracially.
Being a woman in the workforce.
Being a woman in politics.


So you might buy into the hype of political heads making gross political statements and the "other side" organizing protest, but you're out of your mind and being brainwashed by sensationalism if you feel we're on a dangerous trend of intolerance.

The trend is on a STEEEEEEEEEEEEP downward cycle headed away from intolerance.

 

[Mac1958]

I want to reiterate two points:

1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should aor have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.

2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.

I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.

I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:


Tolerance / intolerance toward people

Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas

They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.

If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me! I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...

Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:

When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"? Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?

Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing. But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin? Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?

.

 

[Sarah G]

The word tolerant is in and of itself arrogant, judgemental. You either believe that what someone is saying is true or you don't. It's simple and easy.

 

[G.T.]

I want to reiterate two points:

1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should aor have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.

2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.

I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.

I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:


Tolerance / intolerance toward people

Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas

They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.

If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me! I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...

Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:

When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"? Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?

Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing. But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin? Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?

.

You mistake boycotts for something nefarious?

That's how freedom of speech works.

There will be supporters of said boycotts, and there will be detractors.

Expressing what you want to happen as a result of someone being disagreeable is not the same as the company pulling the trigger. The actual firing (and subsequent rehiring) is on the shoulders of the corporation period, and not on the boycotters.

Boycotting is a way to shun what you find distasteful because you don't want your children in a world where it is promoted. Free speech is being able to express that in any way you see fit, within the law. That is a right.

 

[Mac1958]

I want to reiterate two points:

1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should aor have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.

2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.

I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.

I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:


Tolerance / intolerance toward people

Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas

They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.

If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me! I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...

Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:

When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"? Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?

Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing. But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin? Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?

.

You mistake boycotts for something nefarious?

That's how freedom of speech works.

There will be supporters of said boycotts, and there will be detractors.

Expressing what you want to happen as a result of someone being disagreeable is not the same as the company pulling the trigger. The actual firing (and subsequent rehiring) is on the shoulders of the corporation period, and not on the boycotters.

Boycotting is a way to shun what you find distasteful because you don't want your children in a world where it is promoted. Free speech is being able to express that in any way you see fit, within the law. That is a right.

Perhaps you could actually answer my questions.

What would you like to see happen to the guy who talked on TV about Obama's skin color?

.

 

[G.T.]

Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:

When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"? Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?

Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing. But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin? Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?

.

You mistake boycotts for something nefarious?

That's how freedom of speech works.

There will be supporters of said boycotts, and there will be detractors.

Expressing what you want to happen as a result of someone being disagreeable is not the same as the company pulling the trigger. The actual firing (and subsequent rehiring) is on the shoulders of the corporation period, and not on the boycotters.

Boycotting is a way to shun what you find distasteful because you don't want your children in a world where it is promoted. Free speech is being able to express that in any way you see fit, within the law. That is a right.

Perhaps you could actually answer my questions.

What would you like to see happen to the guy who talked on TV about Obama's skin color?

.

I'd like him shouted down every time he tries, and I'd like his company (if he discloses it) to fire him for misrepresenting their values (HOPEFULLY that misrepresents their values.

You should not win at anything if you're a racist. Racism is EVIL. Not "considered evil by some," but universally and unequivocally evil, there is no logic that can break that truth. Some things are absolutes. You picked an absolute.

 

[Mac1958]

.

GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.

We both want our children to grow up in a better place. I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that. He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing. No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.

I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next." This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.

I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed. They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind. In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative. Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.

.

 

[G.T.]

.

GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.

We both want our children to grow up in a better place. I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that. He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing. No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.

I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next." This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.

I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed. They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind. In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative. Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.

.

Racism is not a difference of opinion, it's universally evil. It is hatred based on an always illogical presumption.

I, too, don't want disagreements to be banned or disallowed. That would be ridiculous.

But if someone is evil, I'd like for people to go after it. And I know that evil is subjective, which would likely be YOUR response - but racism being evil is a non-debatable absolute: sort of like murder.

And sure he'll go back and be a racist. But not on tv or at his company anymore. You fight battles, not whole wars at once.

 

[Mac1958]

.

GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.

We both want our children to grow up in a better place. I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that. He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing. No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.

I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next." This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.

I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed. They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind. In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative. Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.

.

Racism is not a difference of opinion, it's universally evil. It is hatred based on an always illogical presumption.

I, too, don't want disagreements to be banned or disallowed. That would be ridiculous.

But if someone is evil, I'd like for people to go after it. And I know that evil is subjective, which would likely be YOUR response - but racism being evil is a non-debatable absolute: sort of like murder.

And sure he'll go back and be a racist. But not on tv or at his company anymore. You fight battles, not whole wars at once.

Yeah, you're right, I generally have a problem with the world "evil", mostly because I've seen stuff called that a little too easily, but I get your point.

Our goals are the same, our methods of getting there are very different.

Thanks for the quality of the conversation, I'm not used to that here!

.

 

[G.T.]

.

GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.

We both want our children to grow up in a better place. I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that. He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing. No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.

I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next." This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.

I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed. They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind. In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative. Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.

.

Racism is not a difference of opinion, it's universally evil. It is hatred based on an always illogical presumption.

I, too, don't want disagreements to be banned or disallowed. That would be ridiculous.

But if someone is evil, I'd like for people to go after it. And I know that evil is subjective, which would likely be YOUR response - but racism being evil is a non-debatable absolute: sort of like murder.

And sure he'll go back and be a racist. But not on tv or at his company anymore. You fight battles, not whole wars at once.

Yeah, you're right, I generally have a problem with the world "evil", mostly because I've seen stuff called that a little too easily, but I get your point.

Our goals are the same, our methods of getting there are very different.

Thanks for the quality of the conversation, I'm not used to that here!

.

No worry.

I am always cordial with people who aren't jerks and who don't speak in absolutes about whole groups of people - namely factions of political opponents.

But when people cross those lines, I've no problem treating them like dogs.

 

[Papawx3]

I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.

Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler. People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.

That may be, but freedom to think and speak as one thinks is an ideal upon which our nation was founded. Personally I still believe in it. I don't care what someone else thinks or says. It is their right to think and speak as they please, and as long as their freedoms don't interfere with my own, I'll be among the first to defend them.
It is those people who are so ready to vilify others for their thoughts and speech; those that would, without a second thought, remove those same freedoms of others that should be "nipped in the bud".

 

[G.T.]

I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.

Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler. People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.

That may be, but freedom to think and speak as one thinks is an ideal upon which our nation was founded. Personally I still believe in it. I don't care what someone else thinks or says. It is their right to think and speak as they please, and as long as their freedoms don't interfere with my own, I'll be among the first to defend them.
It is those people who are so ready to vilify others for their thoughts and speech; those that would, without a second thought, remove the freedoms of others for the same that should be "nipped in the bud".

That freedom applies to the law.

It doesn't apply to people NOT shunning or boycotting you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I want to reiterate two points:

1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should aor have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.

2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.

I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.

I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:


Tolerance / intolerance toward people

Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas

They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.

If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me! I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...

Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:

When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"? Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?

Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing. But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin? Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?

.

Nope. But if he does end up losing his job for his own stupidity, then that is his problem. I would not cause him to lose it, but I would also not help him to regain it. Personal responsibilty. Boot-straps. Ruggedness.

As for the racism you mention - as much as I hate racism, I again separate the person from the behaviour. Issuing a racist statement against any person, including our President, is totally vile. But to jail a person for it? Nope. But I can choose whether or not to do any kind of business with that person, so long as his behaviour is this way.

Thoughts are free. You cannot imprison them. But you can decide whether or not you want to have anything to do with them. And if the APPLICATION of said thoughts through a third party brings you into danger, you have the right to defend yourself, that is glass-clear.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The word tolerant is in and of itself arrogant, judgemental. You either believe that what someone is saying is true or you don't. It's simple and easy.

yes, I have somewhat made that point a couple of times. Alone, the word "tolerance" is disturbing to me on more than one level.