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

[Mac1958]

If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?

If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?

If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?

In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not. Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them. But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.

Here's what I'm curious about: Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind? What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?

Sincere question, I'd like to know.

.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.

Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase. I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement. And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.

But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are. These are by no means the ONLY examples:

A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.

A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.

A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.

An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.

A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.

A campaign to intimida​

te advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.

Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.

Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody. They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody. The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.

It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties. They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could. For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.

Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc. But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.

Yeah, you didn't give any explicit examples, but you made it pretty clear what you were talking about. None of those examples show "intolerance".

In all of those examples, you've listed public figures, who made public comments that other have disagreed with - publicly and vocally. All of those people made ACTIONS, not thoughts - and the response was to those actions, not thoughts.

Calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" on the radio is an Action, not a thought.
Calling homosexuals "sinners" to a reporter is an Action, not a thought.

And so on.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?

If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?

If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?

In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not. Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them. But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.

Here's what I'm curious about: Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind? What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?

Sincere question, I'd like to know.

.

When (and if) I were to call a racist a racist, it would serve the purpose of informing that person of what I thought of what they were saying.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.

Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase. I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement. And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.

But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are. These are by no means the ONLY examples:

A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.

A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.

A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.

An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.

A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.

A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.

Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​

Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody. They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody. The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.

It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties. They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could. For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.

Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc. But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.

I can't take anything you say seriously.

Are you really trying to claim that Rush calling a young woman a "slut" is just "who he is"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?

Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?

 

[Foxfyre]

"Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.

Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase. I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement. And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.

But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are. These are by no means the ONLY examples:

A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.

A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.

A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.

An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.

A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.

A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.

Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​

Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody. They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody. The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.

It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties. They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could. For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.

Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc. But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.

I can't take anything you say seriously.

Are you really trying to claim that Rush calling a young woman a "slut" is just "who he is"?

Yes I am just as Martin Bashir is who he is when he said somebody should treat Sarah Palin as a slave and deficate in her mouth. Both statements were crude, unacceptable, and wrong in a polite society. But neither party DID anything to anybody. They expressed an opinion no matter how indefensible or despicable. Their employers could definitely take issue with them and enforce whatever personnel protocol was appropriate. Their audiences could certainly choose to watch or listen to somebody or something else. But for an angry mob, group, or organization to go after either of them and attempt to hurt them for no reason other than they expressed a socially abhorrent opinion is just wrong, anti-American, and should be tolerated by none of us.

 

[Foxfyre]

If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?

If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?

If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?

In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not. Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them. But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.

Here's what I'm curious about: Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind? What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?

Sincere question, I'd like to know.

.

When (and if) I were to call a racist a racist, it would serve the purpose of informing that person of what I thought of what they were saying.

That is absolutely right. And you should be able to do so without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization would come after you and attempt to hurt you physically and/or materially for no reason other than you expressed your opinion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.

Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase. I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement. And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.

But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are. These are by no means the ONLY examples:

A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.

A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.

A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.

An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.

A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.

A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.

Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​

Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody. They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody. The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.

It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties. They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could. For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.

Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc. But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.

None of us are entitled to be protected from the consequences of our openly stated opinions. The only thing that is sacrosanct is the right to express them. But if what I post about Mojo's link results in an angry mob demanding that I must be banned because I dared to label it as "drivel" then sobeit. That angry mob can rant and rave to their heart's content but the decision is not theirs to make. It will hinge upon whether or not I broke the USMB posting rules when I expressed that opinion. If I did then I must take responsibility for my own post. If I didn't the angry mob will have no impact on what I have posted in the past or the future for that matter.

So what you are talking about is fear of "mob justice". But since we live under the Rule of Law where no one is above it "mob justice" has no real force. To use your own example the "mob" in the form of GLAAD failed in their attempt because A&E was bound by whatever the "rules" were in the legal contract. Since PR had made similar statements on their show they were in no position to censure him for expressing them in another forum. The lawyers probably verified the rules and A&E then implemented them appropriately.

There was, and is, nothing to fear from the "mob justice" because it is outside of the Rule of Law. Granted the law moves slowly in comparison but unless We the People are willing to trust the system we are setting ourselves up for failure.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase. I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement. And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.

But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are. These are by no means the ONLY examples:

A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.

A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.

A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.

An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.

A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.

A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.

Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​

Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody. They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody. The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.

It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties. They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could. For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.

Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc. But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.

I can't take anything you say seriously.

Are you really trying to claim that Rush calling a young woman a "slut" is just "who he is"?

Yes I am just as Martin Bashir is who he is when he said somebody should treat Sarah Palin as a slave and deficate in her mouth. Both statements were crude, unacceptable, and wrong in a polite society. But neither party DID anything to anybody. They expressed an opinion no matter how indefensible or despicable. Their employers could definitely take issue with them and enforce whatever personnel protocol was appropriate. Their audiences could certainly choose to watch or listen to somebody or something else. But for an angry mob, group, or organization to go after either of them and attempt to hurt them for no reason other than they expressed a socially abhorrent opinion is just wrong, anti-American, and should be tolerated by none of us.

Nonsense.

Thousands of "ditto heads" now refer to Sandra Fluke as a "slut" whenever they mention her name. Perhaps you should ask her whether she thinks Rush DID anything to her.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not. Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them. But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.

Here's what I'm curious about: Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind? What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?

Sincere question, I'd like to know.

.

When (and if) I were to call a racist a racist, it would serve the purpose of informing that person of what I thought of what they were saying.

That is absolutely right. And you should be able to do so without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization would come after you and attempt to hurt you physically and/or materially for no reason other than you expressed your opinion.

No one has been hurt "physically", and those "angry mobs" are just people expressing their contrary opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Meh, it's essentially semantics.

For me, it's not difficult to differentiate civility from intolerance. Just look at the posts on this site, sometimes you'll see a response like "well, I disagree and here's why", and sometimes (more often, unfortunately) you'll see something much closer to "that's bullshit, you're an idiot".

Personally, I would consider the latter a form of intolerance, a lack of civility, a lack of confidence, childishness, or some combination therein.

.

I would agree with the lack of civility, lack of confidence, childishness, or some combination.

But I wouldn't call it "intolerance".

As I said, semantics.

.

Intolerance means to me that you will not permit it, not allow it, not agree to allowing it to exist. It is easy to say that we will not tolerate racists or homophobes or religious nuts or environmental wackos, but what we are really saying is we will not agree to be like them, to accept their point of view as okay. The context of the OP is more than just semantics. It is more than our personal choice of whether we will associate with or patronize somebody we find unacceptable.

Intolerance in this context is the concept of physically and/or materially hurting in an intentional way somebody who holds opinions that we don't share, who expresses beliefs or opinions that we don't agree with, who seek to silence anybody that expresses an 'objectionable' or 'politically incorrect' or 'offensive' point of view.'

The problem is who gets to set the standards? Who gets to make the rules for who and what people are allowed to be?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you making the argument that it's "intolerant" to complain about a public figure making rude comments?

 

[Asclepias]

Yes!

I ignore them right here in the USMB.

They can spout off as much as they like and I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact I support their right to do so. I tolerate their intolerance because their freedom and mine are indivisible.

How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them? What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?

I don't delude myself into believing that my opinion will ever make a significant difference. I see myself as just one small voice in a much larger chorus of We the People. Each voice has it's own part to sing in the Opera that is America today but mine is insignificant and no, I don't fancy myself as a soloist.

So the person deranged enough to commit that heinous act will do so of their own volition and it won't be because someone here made them do it either. Adults must accept responsibility for their actions. Blaming others is what children do.

Everyones opinion makes a difference. Sometimes it can be significant without you ever intending it to be. In my example if all the person needed was one voice of reason and you elected to remain silent how would you feel?

 

[Derideo_Te]

How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them? What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?

I don't delude myself into believing that my opinion will ever make a significant difference. I see myself as just one small voice in a much larger chorus of We the People. Each voice has it's own part to sing in the Opera that is America today but mine is insignificant and no, I don't fancy myself as a soloist.

So the person deranged enough to commit that heinous act will do so of their own volition and it won't be because someone here made them do it either. Adults must accept responsibility for their actions. Blaming others is what children do.

Everyones opinion makes a difference. Sometimes it can be significant without you ever intending it to be. In my example if all the person needed was one voice of reason and you elected to remain silent how would you feel?

Unlikely that I would even be aware that I failed to be the "one voice of reason". As far as opinions making a difference I don't see it happening all that often. Instead I see entrenched positions that are unlikely to change irrespective of whatever opinions are expressed. Certainly someone deranged enough to senselessly kill innocent people is unlikely to be open to the "voice of reason" so I am having a problem with your hypothesis.

 

[Asclepias]

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 am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything. Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.

It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust. It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS. And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.

The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others. Again from the op:

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.

In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?

Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.

If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction. If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?

Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?

To the first question, yes.
To the second question, no.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?

Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?

To the first question, yes.
To the second question, no.

Even thought the only reason they fired him was due to that "outrage"?

 

[Asclepias]

I don't delude myself into believing that my opinion will ever make a significant difference. I see myself as just one small voice in a much larger chorus of We the People. Each voice has it's own part to sing in the Opera that is America today but mine is insignificant and no, I don't fancy myself as a soloist.

So the person deranged enough to commit that heinous act will do so of their own volition and it won't be because someone here made them do it either. Adults must accept responsibility for their actions. Blaming others is what children do.

Everyones opinion makes a difference. Sometimes it can be significant without you ever intending it to be. In my example if all the person needed was one voice of reason and you elected to remain silent how would you feel?

Unlikely that I would even be aware that I failed to be the "one voice of reason". As far as opinions making a difference I don't see it happening all that often. Instead I see entrenched positions that are unlikely to change irrespective of whatever opinions are expressed. Certainly someone deranged enough to senselessly kill innocent people is unlikely to be open to the "voice of reason" so I am having a problem with your hypothesis.

Thats the whole point. You never know when what you express will be taken as significant to someone else. Opinions make a huge difference all the time. Everything you and I do are based on opinions. Can you tell me something you ever believed in without forming an opinion? Yes your voice can be the voice of reason. You can talk someone out of committing suicide, divorce, or killing someone just by showing them a new way to think about it. Your voice has power you wouldn't believe. Thats not being arrogant. Thats just the facts.

 

[Againsheila]

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?

I think tolerance is overrated.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything. Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.

It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust. It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS. And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.

The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others. Again from the op:

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.

In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?

Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.

If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction. If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.

No. Not in this context. It is not what is 'okay'. I may think your (a generic your--not you personally) liberal views to be harmful, hateful, stupid, and ignorant. I might not go to your party, buy your book, or ask you to serve on my committee because you wouldn't offer anything I could agree with. If you insisted on being racist or homophobic or anti-Christian or pro-Nambla or some such, I might not want you on my staff or in my organization because it could reflect badly on my organization. That is not intolerance. That is choice of association--making a personal choice of what I consider to be acceptable behavior.

But I have wandered into the area of intolerance if I try to get other people to boycott your party. If I try to get book sellers to not carry your book or intimidate people into not buying it. If I go to your other committees and try to get you kicked off. If I try to get your employer or sponsoring organizations to fire you. That is far different than me exercising my personal choice or convictions. That is maliciously and deliberately trying to punish somebody for no reason than he/she holds a belief or opinion I don't share and/or is somebody I don't like. That would be wrong, hateful, spiteful, and should be intolerable to freedom loving people everywhere.

Thedoctorisin thinks somebody speaking an opinion is no different than DOING someithing to somebody. He is entitled to that opinion. I am entitled to strongly disagree with him (which I do.) Neither of us should feel entitled to physically and/or materially punish the other because we don't like what the other says or believes though.



The Doctorisin thinks there is no difference between thought, opinion, speech, and DOING something to somebody. That is his opinion and