Regarding Tolerance

[Madner Kami]

facepalm.jpg

[LittleRaven]

And it was patronizing rebuttal to an assertion that was never made.

Hey, I'll cop to the patronizing. Apologies. That was not my intent, but I can definitely see how it came across that way. And if I misunderstood your original post, well then, I apologize for that as well. All I can say is that you have honestly confused me.

It's all good in the hood.

[Admiral X]

Thus was the Western idea of tolerance born. And yes, it most definitely covered political viewpoints. Lots of people thought the Hapsburgs should be in charge. Lots of people didn't. But maybe you could tolerate your neighbor having a different opinion about that, without say, chaining him to a wheel and breaking all his limbs.

Now, the Peace of Westphalia was 500 years ago. We've come a long way since then. But I don't see how we possibly exclude politics from the concept, particularly in a democracy, without seriously backsliding.

Incidentally, this is part of why I call "progressives" the regressive left. Of course they don't see this move backwards as a move backwards.

[Darth Wedgius]

Tolerance, in its contemporary form, wasn't really intended to be about political viewpoints.

Tolerance was about tolerating differences of race, of religion, of nationality, of sexual orientation, and of gender.

Sorry, but that is your definition. And fair enough, words don't have an objective definition. But I see no reason to accept your definition and proceed from it.

A YouTube commenter was recently attacked near a sci-fi/fantasy convention by a man who took exception to the YouTuber's anti-SJW videos. They hadn't encountered each other personally before this. The attacker asked, "Are you xxxx," got an affirmative, and started punching the YouTuber. The attacker liked to wear an "I Punch Nazis" short, but the victim was not a Nazi except by the "Everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi" standard.

I will not be using your definition of tolerance.

[Nealithi]

Tolerance, in its contemporary form, wasn't really intended to be about political viewpoints.

Tolerance was about tolerating differences of race, of religion, of nationality, of sexual orientation, and of gender.

Sorry, but that is your definition. And fair enough, words don't have an objective definition. But I see no reason to accept your definition and proceed from it.

A YouTube commenter was recently attacked near a sci-fi/fantasy convention by a man who took exception to the YouTuber's anti-SJW videos. They hadn't encountered each other personally before this. The attacker asked, "Are you xxxx," got an affirmative, and started punching the YouTuber. The attacker liked to wear an "I Punch Nazis" short, but the victim was not a Nazi except by the "Everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi" standard.

I will not be using your definition of tolerance.

Just a notation but the "Everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi" followed by the qualification "in authority" to bring a comparison to Hitler. I think is terribly bad. Because it diminishes Nazi's and Hitler. Three, two, one. No I am not supporting Hitler nor Nazis. But if a teacher demanding rules be followed is compared to Hitler, really doesn't make that teacher look worse. It softens how Hitler is seen. If you have a mass murdering group burning books 'because' then by all means compare to Nazis. And compare the leader of such a group as 'Hitler'. But there is now way the last five Presidents were all like Hitler.


Sorry but that touched a nerve.

[Yukaphile]

I disagree. Tolerance is not recognizing that people are different from you. It's recognizing that in all the ways that matter, standing in front of the universe, we are the same.

[Karha of Honor]

I disagree. Tolerance is not recognizing that people are different from you. It's recognizing that in all the ways that matter, standing in front of the universe, we are the same.

No we aren't. Grow up as a Saudi or Japanese and tell how it is like growing up in America.

[Steve]

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.

(I could've used Nazis, but that label gets overused.)

[Karha of Honor]

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.

(I could've used Nazis, but that label gets overused.)

Considering the robust civil rights protections and this being the information age it does make one a coward.

[LittleRaven]

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.

Probably, but if so, he's wrong.

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.