Regarding Tolerance

[Riedquat]

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.

Because society has decided that criminal behaviour should not be tolerated. Not every action and behaviour does have the same rights. It's not about different groups with the same behaviour; they wouldn't be different then.

What's criminal, what gets you locked up, those are fundamentally arbitrary, hopefully based on fairly generally hold values of what should and should not be tolerated, but still arbitrary. You could just as easily say everyone has the same rights to the same what we now call criminal activity. In some times, in some places it would not be called criminal, and some things that now aren't criminal very mcuh were once. Whether or not a behviour is criminal isn't a fundamental difference to the discussion of the ethics (it would be very hard to improve the law if you couldn't separate them).

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.

They're not allowed everywhere though. You could also argue that they're not really the organisations they claim to be if they've no intention of wanting to put their beliefs into practice given the chance. Even when they are you can't always march any time, anywhere.

[Riedquat]

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 don't assume that thinking is the same as doing, but I do know that various groups and organisations are banned. Some of those may be banned justly, some unjustly, but is it only because of what they might be obviously doing now? Like it or not there has to be a predictive element involved. And whilst you've listed behaviours things that are generally universally disliked that's just picking the obvious cases, but both them and the more divisive ones are still about changing things in a way that some people might find disagreable. Some of that disagreable stuff we pretty much universally agree on, some of it only a minority does, but there's no hard and fast objective rule for saying "you must like this" and "you must not like that." You simply cannot say "you're wrong to not want more or less of x". The problem with the modern preachers of "tolerance" is that they believe that you can, they've drawn their lines in the sand and expect everyone else to follow them.

[Admiral X]

I suspect Fuzzy was building up to a position that not tolerating someone who is intolerant toward people who have a different color/creed/sexual identity/sexual orientation/nation of origin does not make you their moral equal. Refusing to tolerate Communists does not make one as intolerant as Communists.

No, but it does still make you intolerant if seeing one of them shoot their mouth off makes you think it's okay to just head on over and punch them in the face, though.

[Admiral X]

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.

Actually, no they aren't. It only becomes illegal if it can be shown the person who made the threat was actually going to try to carry it out. There have been plenty of court cases over just that.

[Riedquat]

I suspect Fuzzy was building up to a position that not tolerating someone who is intolerant toward people who have a different color/creed/sexual identity/sexual orientation/nation of origin does not make you their moral equal. Refusing to tolerate Communists does not make one as intolerant as Communists.

No, but it does still make you intolerant if seeing one of them shoot their mouth off makes you think it's okay to just head on over and punch them in the face, though.

Does it make you intolerant if you seek to change them through non-violent means? After all the root is still the same - there's something there that you feel needs to be eliminated. Punching someone is merely an immediate and probably ineffectual way of going about it.

[Darth Wedgius]

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.

No serious objection. Don't violate the law in your prayers (e.g., human sacrifice) and I can't think of a reason to care.

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.

As long as you're fine with me deciding what it's OK for me to be intolerant about, that seems entirely fair. I've heard people tell whites to stop breeding, that men should be in concentration camps, and that one man's desired Christmas present was white genocide. It's OK for me not to tolerate that, right?

Because the point where I object is where you declare different rules for different people.

Fuzzy, I think you're trying to do the right thing as you see the right thing to do, but I've also seen signs that you hold different groups to different standards. A cop rapes someone? "Fuck the police!" A muslim drives through a crowd of people? Wouldn't you insist, "Not all muslims?" And you seem to hold white people accountable for the crimes of white people past and present, but I doubt you'd do the same for any other hue of human.

I (and a lot of people) will find holding individuals to different standards on the basis of sex, race, religion, politics, or LGBTQSC+ status to be unacceptable. You and I will probably continue to disagree on that, and consider the other as less than ethical for their view.

I want to emphasize that the following is in no way a threat because I have neither the capability nor the desire to attack you. I don't even wish you ill fortune, to be honest. I'm like 95% vegetarian (only fish, and only predatory fish at that). I'm harmless.

But there are people out there who do know more about each other, and may be more disposed to violence than I am, might be intoxicated on whatever, or might just have had a really bad day. It's tolerance that lets disagreements such as ours be resolved without violence.

If you disregard tolerance, the people opposing you aren't going to say, "Well it's fine if you're violent because you have good reason, but we'll just stick to speech and the ballot." You're going to get blood in the streets, and people on all sides are going to be doing the bleeding. We may have already seen Antifa violence provoke one car attack.

If that doesn't sound like a good idea to you, then maybe now you can see why you "should be tolerant of that."

[Admiral X]

Does it make you intolerant if you seek to change them through non-violent means?

I'm of two minds about that. The analogy that comes to mind is of Christians constantly trying to convert people vs. those who essentially just mind their own business and do their own thing. Actually an example of tolerance would be the wedding cake analogy, where they aren't actively anti-gay, but won't actively promote what they see as contrary to their belief system by making a cake for a gay wedding. Christians are a bit easy to pick on here, though part of that is because they are seen as acceptable targets by our "progressive" overlords.

[Antiboyscout]

I suspect Fuzzy was building up to a position that not tolerating someone who is intolerant toward people who have a different color/creed/sexual identity/sexual orientation/nation of origin does not make you their moral equal. Refusing to tolerate Communists does not make one as intolerant as Communists.

No, but it does still make you intolerant if seeing one of them shoot their mouth off makes you think it's okay to just head on over and punch them in the face, though.

Does it make you intolerant if you seek to change them through non-violent means? After all the root is still the same - there's something there that you feel needs to be eliminated. Punching someone is merely an immediate and probably ineffectual way of going about it.

We're in the progressive era of CURRENT YEAR where words = violence.
Don't you remember?

[Darth Wedgius]

The YouTuber I mentioned above apparently cast doubts on a cosplayer's claims of harassment. Said cosplayer said she was harassed because of that, and he caught heat for it. I haven't found the specific video he did (YouTube deleted it and I haven't located a mirror), but, IMO, that doesn't justify the assault.

And now a producer of GenCon (the convention the YouTuber was attending) has come out in favor of the attack, calling the YouTuber a "Nazi" (of course) and saying he was a threat to his family by his political stance. Similar to how Fuzzy claims people with certain political views are an existential threat.

And of course there have been many Antifa assaults on people for their political views as well.

I can see why the authoritarian left would want to exclude political beliefs from what tolerance is supposed to be, because otherwise beating people who express the wrong political beliefs would be awkward at best.

[LittleRaven]

Does it make you intolerant if you seek to change them through non-violent means?

Nope. You are free to proselytize to your heart's content. I mean, you can't like, force your way into their living room or anything, but pretty much anything shy of harassment is fair game. Legally, anyway. If you do things wrong, you're likely to come across as annoying at best and a total asshole at worst. But both of those things are legal.

Tolerance really doesn't ask very much of you. 95% of it is just that you refrain from punching people. Sadly, people often have trouble hitting even that low bar.