Regarding Tolerance

[Riedquat]

Remember, tolerate only means that you acknowledge that this person has the same rights that you do. It doesn't mean that you have to like them, support them, hang out with them, or vote for them. All it requires is that you acknowledge their rights. And yes, anyone who starts denying rights to Communists or Nazis does in fact become their moral equivalent. I know it sucks, but you always have to let them throw the first punch, lest you become them.

Nobody said being the good guys was easy.

Up to a point. There's such a thing as too much tolerance; we lock up criminals rather than tolerate their activities for the easy extreme end example. I don't see any moral issue with not tolerating certain groups, and not tolerating them does not mean becoming them. Nazis keep getting brought up as the easy example - should Nazi organisations be allowed (as long as they don't go putting some of their beliefs in to practice)?

We can argue until the cows come home about any particular example, but what doesn't work is a simple black and white rule for what's right and what's wrong. Those lead to "who are you to judge?" if you question them, which to me is just shirking responsibility.

[LittleRaven]

Up to a point. There's such a thing as too much tolerance; we lock up criminals rather than tolerate their activities for the easy extreme end example.

But that's not an example. Tolerance only requires acknowledging that they have the same rights that you do. You do not have the right to criminal activity; neither do they. Both of you get locked up if you break the law.

should Nazi organisations be allowed (as long as they don't go putting some of their beliefs in to practice)?

Absolutely. Not only are they allowed, they're given police protection when they march. They have the same rights you do. You can march....so can they. You can argue your position in public, so can they.

They cannot punch people. Neither can you.

[Yukaphile]

They're still human like we are. We need to acknowledge that in all the ways that matter, we are the same. We hate, we love, we laugh, we cry, we fall in love, we hurt one another...

[SuccubusYuri]

[But that's not an example. Tolerance only requires acknowledging that they have the same rights that you do. You do not have the right to criminal activity; neither do they. Both of you get locked up if you break the law.

I would only say that, your argument presupposes that "criminal activity" is a fixed constant, like it's something that isn't controlled by human beings.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I want to pray, to marry, and to be of my ethnicity, is not a statement on par with any political ideology, and should not be politicized at all. The fact that it is so politicized is evidence of how far the overton window has gotten out of hand.

If you subscribe to certain ideologies, of you vote for certain politicians, then you are actively working to cut the food stamps that allow me to not starve, the public health programs that keep me alive, and the housing regulations that keep a roof over my head. I don't see why I should be tolerant of that.

[Madner Kami]

Up to a point. There's such a thing as too much tolerance; we lock up criminals rather than tolerate their activities for the easy extreme end example. I don't see any moral issue with not tolerating certain groups, and not tolerating them does not mean becoming them. Nazis keep getting brought up as the easy example - should Nazi organisations be allowed (as long as they don't go putting some of their beliefs in to practice)?

Tolerating up to a point, yes, but you assume that thinking is the same as doing, which it isn't. You wouldn't want to advocate to throw someone who thinks about doing a crime or talks about how to perpetrate a crime into the jail for the crime, right? Or would you? As long as a Nazi only talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk, things are golden. The moment s/he starts to harass, to beat, to burn houses or kill, is the moment that Nazi became intolerable. As long as s/he just avoids interaction with people of different ethnicity, there's no problem, wouldn't you agree?

I want to pray, to marry, and to be of my ethnicity, is not a statement on par with any political ideology, and should not be politicized at all. The fact that it is so politicized is evidence of how far the overton window has gotten out of hand.

The moment you pray in my vicinity, you make it a politicum. I'm not of your faith and the moment you involve me in it, you crossed a line from privacy to politics. Same for you marrying someone. Feel free to do so, but don't be stupid enough to assume that everyone who you drag into it, say a cake-maker, agrees with your lifestyle and they are free to make a statement about their opinion, just as you are making a statement about your opinion by marrying who or whatever.

If you subscribe to certain ideologies, of you vote for certain politicians, then you are actively working to cut the food stamps that allow me to not starve, the public health programs that keep me alive, and the housing regulations that keep a roof over my head. I don't see why I should be tolerant of that.

You make the repeated mistake of understanding "tolerating an idea" as "accepting that idea". That is not one and the same. If someone says or does something that you do not agree with, you are free to speak up about what was said. But you have to allow that opinion or statement to be said out loud first and that is the toleration.
As much as you have the right to say gay-marriage is alright or you wanting to practise whatever religious shennenigans you are up to, the Nazi has the right to declare that s/he doesn't like whatever ethnicity s/he doesn't like. You are free to comdemn them after their statement as much as you like, but you are not free to gag the Nazi before he throws out his stupid shit, just as much as s/he has no right to gag you.

[LittleRaven]

I would only say that, your argument presupposes that "criminal activity" is a fixed constant, like it's something that isn't controlled by human beings.

I was just responding to Riedquat. And no, my argument doesn't presuppose that at all. Laws change constantly, but the fact that all people are (at least in theory) equally beholden to them does not. What we want to avoid is a situation where some people are stripped from rights that others enjoy.

And just to be clear, I'm not holding the law up as some kind of ultimate arbiter of truth or anything. It's a human institution, and as such carries all of our flaws. It's not always right, it's not always good. But it's necessary for social stability, which is a very precious thing indeed.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Up to a point. There's such a thing as too much tolerance; we lock up criminals rather than tolerate their activities for the easy extreme end example. I don't see any moral issue with not tolerating certain groups, and not tolerating them does not mean becoming them. Nazis keep getting brought up as the easy example - should Nazi organisations be allowed (as long as they don't go putting some of their beliefs in to practice)?

Tolerating up to a point, yes, but you assume that thinking is the same as doing, which it isn't. You wouldn't want to advocate to throw someone who thinks about doing a crime or talks about how to perpetrate a crime into the jail for the crime, right? Or would you? As long as a Nazi only talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk, things are golden. The moment s/he starts to harass, to beat, to burn houses or kill, is the moment that Nazi became intolerable. As long as s/he just avoids interaction with people of different ethnicity, there's no problem, wouldn't you agree?

Well, on the subject of Talking the Talk, remember that death threats are a crime in and of themselves. Every angry fanboy who sends in a "I'm gonna kill you, you *charged epithet* for ruining my childhood!" message to a Star Wars actor is guilty of a crime, even regardless of their ability to follow up on it.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I want to pray, to marry, and to be of my ethnicity, is not a statement on par with any political ideology, and should not be politicized at all. The fact that it is so politicized is evidence of how far the overton window has gotten out of hand.

The moment you pray in my vicinity, you make it a politicum. I'm not of your faith and the moment you involve me in it, you crossed a line from privacy to politics. Same for you marrying someone. Feel free to do so, but don't be stupid enough to assume that everyone who you drag into it, say a cake-maker, agrees with your lifestyle and they are free to make a statement about their opinion, just as you are making a statement about your opinion by marrying who or whatever.

I...I really don't.

You presume that the norm is apolitical, and that minority identities are political. If we're on a plane together, and it hits a patch of turbulence, and I screw my eyes and start praying that we don't crash, I'm not involving you.
My "Lifestyle" is not political, because straight people can get married, talk about their husbands or wives, talk about people of the opposite sex they find attractive, without anyone raising a stink.

What your saying amounts to "We normal people have the right to be normal, and you weirdos can do whatever you want as long as you keep it to the shame basement. Just, don't be too In Our Face about it."

[Madner Kami]

I want to pray, to marry, and to be of my ethnicity, is not a statement on par with any political ideology, and should not be politicized at all. The fact that it is so politicized is evidence of how far the overton window has gotten out of hand.

The moment you pray in my vicinity, you make it a politicum. I'm not of your faith and the moment you involve me in it, you crossed a line from privacy to politics. Same for you marrying someone. Feel free to do so, but don't be stupid enough to assume that everyone who you drag into it, say a cake-maker, agrees with your lifestyle and they are free to make a statement about their opinion, just as you are making a statement about your opinion by marrying who or whatever.

I...I really don't.

You presume that the norm is apolitical

No, I really don't. That is what you presume about me, my statement and the entire world, but it is the exact opposite of what I just wrote. Any interhuman interaction is political by it's very nature. People will generally not comment on issues they happen to agree with or do not care about and thus have no discontent, but these things are still political, there just happens to be a concensus that doesn't need to be discussed within the group, for obvious reasons.

What your saying amounts to "We normal people have the right to be normal, and you weirdos can do whatever you want as long as you keep it to the shame basement. Just, don't be too In Our Face about it."

No, what I am saying is, that every special snowflake has the right to be special, as long as the snowflake does not presume that any other snowflake he drags into whatever issue he has, has to agree with the first special snowflake. Everyone is special and everyone has the right to be, but noone has the right to expect everyone else to remain silent.

Well, on the subject of Talking the Talk, remember that death threats are a crime in and of themselves. Every angry fanboy who sends in a "I'm gonna kill you, you *charged epithet* for ruining my childhood!" message to a Star Wars actor is guilty of a crime, even regardless of their ability to follow up on it.

Did you not read, overlook or just purposefully ignore the part where I made mention of harassement? Here, let me highlight it for you:

Tolerating up to a point, yes, but you assume that thinking is the same as doing, which it isn't. You wouldn't want to advocate to throw someone who thinks about doing a crime or talks about how to perpetrate a crime into the jail for the crime, right? Or would you? As long as a Nazi only talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk, things are golden. The moment s/he starts to harass, to beat, to burn houses or kill, is the moment that Nazi became intolerable. As long as s/he just avoids interaction with people of different ethnicity, there's no problem, wouldn't you agree?

Note the importance of that part there? I put it there for a reason. Stop desperately looking for something you disagree with and want to argue about and instead have a look at the general, instead of the particular. It will save you, me and everyone reading this a lot of time and open up an avenue for a lot of productive conversation.