Tolerance and why it will never happen

[Plasmaball]

This in reality should be a very short thread. The idea is basically that one should tolerate unpopular opinions from people because they have the right to those opinions. Well yes they do, but we as society have the right to react to those opinions in a manner of ways we so see fit. We can send in letters, emails for the more hip, Call, Boycott and even demand someone if fired.

The company ( we will use Phil from ducks as the leading example.) has the right to ignore such demands from the public. They also have the right to watch their bottom line and if they feel such words will result in them loosing money. They can remove said person from their business.

Now some think ( well one really) that such ACTIONS as calling for a firing should be made criminal. Now to any logical person that should be a red flag. You can not claim someone has the unalienable right to voice their opinion, and then in the next breath say that a group voicing there opinion/actions as a criminal offense.

Speaking out against the crown at one point was also illegal, and yet i highly doubt that would be seen as "evil" by some people. In fact i assume those types would have supported such Evil actions.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you need to take the good with the bad. Sometimes that bad has consequences such as boycotts and the call to fire someone.

I'm not going to get into the partisan left vs right and who doesn't like consequences, because the reality is nobody likes them. Nobody wants to be personally accountable for their actions and always wants to pass the buck to whomever than can. The reality is this is a dumb partisan trick in order to play victim/divert the subject.



I guess there isnt really much to debate, because there really isnt anything to debate on this subject to logical people. Granted who cares where this subject goes, freedom of speech and the flow of conversation is the greatest thing in this world to have.

 

[BDBoop]

My only digress would be that some among us are fine with consequences. We may say something stupid because we didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle, or simply misspoke. It is then logical (and a sign of mental clarity) to say "Know what? You're right. And boy is my face red. I shall be standing in yon corner until I've learned my lesson."

That's not caving to public pressure, if it is sincere. Or to quote some anonymous Internet denizen, "To admit you were wrong is to declare you are wiser now than before."

 

[Plasmaball]

thats a very rare thing in this day in age

 

[Gracie]

My only digress would be that some among us are fine with consequences. We may say something stupid because we didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle, or simply misspoke. It is then logical (and a sign of mental clarity) to say "Know what? You're right. And boy is my face red. I shall be standing in yon corner until I've learned my lesson."

That's not caving to public pressure, if it is sincere. Or to quote some anonymous Internet denizen, "To admit you were wrong is to declare you are wiser now than before."

Best response of the day! Brava!

 

[Gracie]

I was thinking about this earlier when I was outside drinking my morning tea.
So many call for world peace...but it will never happen. Hell, if one thread in one message board...or many threads in many message boards are anything like what I see every day...what makes anyone think the WHOLE WORLD will ever find peace with one another??

 

[Plasmaball]

I was thinking about this earlier when I was outside drinking my morning tea.
So many call for world peace...but it will never happen. Hell, if one thread in one message board...or many threads in many message boards are anything like what I see every day...what makes anyone think the WHOLE WORLD will ever find peace with one another??

eh it would take a major event for that to happen, and even then i think it would be short lived. We are basically very impatient people when it comes to things we want.

 

[BDBoop]

But back to the subject at hand.

Intolerance to that which is unacceptable is NOT bad or wrong. Hate is poison. Those who do not hate will have a strong reaction to it, and rightly so.

As I stated elsewhere, the many of us can accomplish more than any of us can as individuals. That is why GLAAD did nothing wrong, bad, criminal or illegal. *Those last two are interchangeable*

 

[Statistikhengst]

My only digress would be that some among us are fine with consequences. We may say something stupid because we didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle, or simply misspoke. It is then logical (and a sign of mental clarity) to say "Know what? You're right. And boy is my face red. I shall be standing in yon corner until I've learned my lesson."

That's not caving to public pressure, if it is sincere. Or to quote some anonymous Internet denizen, "To admit you were wrong is to declare you are wiser now than before."

Brava!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

I still contend that we should break down tolerance and intolerance into 2 categories.

Although the two words are antonyms of each other, the one - intolerance, when exercised against people who have committed aggregious wrong, is one thing.

But the other word, "tolerance" ---

Just to "tolerate" others? I am not so sure.

To tolerate, to me, means to simply allow someone else to live, but only because murder is not allowed, so to speak. To tolerate someone is the lowest form of contact and it also does not mean acceptance in any way. Seems to me to be a piss-poor way of living. We can do better than this.

I frankly do not think we should be talking about tolerance at all. Rather, we should be talking about acceptance and understanding of people - and - acceptance or rejection of ideas.

I believe that the "tolerance mentality" only serves to put people more and more into opposing camps.

Just look at how Right and Left tend to treat each other here in USMB. That kind of says it all.

I can very easily accept a Muslim citizen and welcome him or her into my life, should contact happen and a friendship develop, and still be critical in extreme of the K'uran and it's many ideas with which I am not in agreement at all. Disagreeing with their holy book does not make me intolerant of Muslims. And acceptance requires no negative energy. I believe the learning to discern between the one and the other is something we should all strive for.

 

[Statistikhengst]

But back to the subject at hand.

Intolerance to that which is unacceptable is NOT bad or wrong. Hate is poison. Those who do not hate will have a strong reaction to it, and rightly so.

As I stated elsewhere, the many of us can accomplish more than any of us can as individuals. That is why GLAAD did nothing wrong, bad, criminal or illegal. *Those last two are interchangeable*

 

[BDBoop]

I still contend that we should break down tolerance and intolerance into 2 categories.

Although the two words are antonyms of each other, the one - intolerance, when exercised against people who have committed aggregious wrong, is one thing.

But the other word, "tolerance" ---

Just to "tolerate" others? I am not so sure.

To tolerate, to me, means to simply allow someone else to live, but only because murder is not allowed, so to speak. To tolerate someone is the lowest form of contact and it also does not mean acceptance in any way. Seems to me to be a piss-poor way of living. We can do better than this.

I frankly do not think we should be talking about tolerance at all. Rather, we should be talking about acceptance and understanding of people - and - acceptance or rejection of ideas.

I believe that the "tolerance mentality" only serves to put people more and more into opposing camps.

Just look at how Right and Left tend to treat each other here in USMB. That kind of says it all.

I can very easily accept a Muslim citizen and welcome him or her into my life, should contact happen and a friendship develop, and still be critical in extreme of the K'uran and it's many ideas with which I am not in agreement at all. Disagreeing with their holy book does not make me intolerant of Muslims. And acceptance requires no negative energy. I believe the learning to discern between the one and the other is something we should all strive for.

Dignity and respect, that's all I'm saying. And if somebody greets me with the following

• shame
• belittle
• mock
• derision
• dehumanize
• demonize
  
  I almost inevitably welcome them to my ignore list.
  

 

[Statistikhengst]

I still contend that we should break down tolerance and intolerance into 2 categories.

Although the two words are antonyms of each other, the one - intolerance, when exercised against people who have committed aggregious wrong, is one thing.

But the other word, "tolerance" ---

Just to "tolerate" others? I am not so sure.

To tolerate, to me, means to simply allow someone else to live, but only because murder is not allowed, so to speak. To tolerate someone is the lowest form of contact and it also does not mean acceptance in any way. Seems to me to be a piss-poor way of living. We can do better than this.

I frankly do not think we should be talking about tolerance at all. Rather, we should be talking about acceptance and understanding of people - and - acceptance or rejection of ideas.

I believe that the "tolerance mentality" only serves to put people more and more into opposing camps.

Just look at how Right and Left tend to treat each other here in USMB. That kind of says it all.

I can very easily accept a Muslim citizen and welcome him or her into my life, should contact happen and a friendship develop, and still be critical in extreme of the K'uran and it's many ideas with which I am not in agreement at all. Disagreeing with their holy book does not make me intolerant of Muslims. And acceptance requires no negative energy. I believe the learning to discern between the one and the other is something we should all strive for.

Dignity and respect, that's all I'm saying. And if somebody greets me with the following

• shame
• belittle
• mock
• derision
• dehumanize
• demonize
  
  I almost inevitably welcome them to my ignore list.
  

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But back to the subject at hand.

Intolerance to that which is unacceptable is NOT bad or wrong. Hate is poison. Those who do not hate will have a strong reaction to it, and rightly so.

As I stated elsewhere, the many of us can accomplish more than any of us can as individuals. That is why GLAAD did nothing wrong, bad, criminal or illegal. *Those last two are interchangeable*

I still contend that we should break down tolerance and intolerance into 2 categories.

Although the two words are antonyms of each other, the one - intolerance, when exercised against people who have committed aggregious wrong, is one thing.

But the other word, "tolerance" ---

Just to "tolerate" others? I am not so sure.

To tolerate, to me, means to simply allow someone else to live, but only because murder is not allowed, so to speak. To tolerate someone is the lowest form of contact and it also does not mean acceptance in any way. Seems to me to be a piss-poor way of living. We can do better than this.

I frankly do not think we should be talking about tolerance at all. Rather, we should be talking about acceptance and understanding of people - and - acceptance or rejection of ideas.

I believe that the "tolerance mentality" only serves to put people more and more into opposing camps.

Just look at how Right and Left tend to treat each other here in USMB. That kind of says it all.

I can very easily accept a Muslim citizen and welcome him or her into my life, should contact happen and a friendship develop, and still be critical in extreme of the K'uran and it's many ideas with which I am not in agreement at all. Disagreeing with their holy book does not make me intolerant of Muslims. And acceptance requires no negative energy. I believe the learning to discern between the one and the other is something we should all strive for.

Dignity and respect, that's all I'm saying. And if somebody greets me with the following

• shame
• belittle
• mock
• derision
• dehumanize
• demonize
  
  I almost inevitably welcome them to my ignore list.
  

Absolutely dignity and respect. Respecting the rights of others to express their opinions, no matter how deplorable they may be, does not mean that one endorses those opinions.

The inability to understand that the right to speak out is paramount over and above the content of what is said is a huge part of the problem.

The next point that I would add is ACCOUNTABILITY for what one says. Words can and do cause REACTIONS in others. Because our words triggered that reaction means that we must be accountable for them. Accountability is non partisan. Everyone needs to be held accountable.

Classic example here is Talk Radio. The emotive terminology used incites negative feelings for the express purpose of making the listeners feel aggrieved and angry. Should the people who are doing the talking be held accountable for what they are doing? Absolutely! And if it takes the form of boycotting corporations that sponsor those talk radio shows then sobeit.

The reaction against GLAAD demanding the firing of PR was another form of accountability. It triggered the thread about intolerance that ended up spawning this thread.

The 1st Amendment protects both sides from each other by holding each side accountable for what they say and who they choose to associate themselves with.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The most intolerance I have seen on this board is from one side. Think like me, act like me say what I say. And then they have the gall to claim they are tolerant.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Well, at least the PC Police are admitting they're intolerant.

That's a start!



.

 

[Plasmaball]

But back to the subject at hand.

Intolerance to that which is unacceptable is NOT bad or wrong. Hate is poison. Those who do not hate will have a strong reaction to it, and rightly so.

As I stated elsewhere, the many of us can accomplish more than any of us can as individuals. That is why GLAAD did nothing wrong, bad, criminal or illegal. *Those last two are interchangeable*

Correct the idea things need to be tolerated means those opinions have equal weight to other opinions. They do not. Those opinions should be put in the corner and scolded.

 

[Plasmaball]

The most intolerance I have seen on this board is from one side. Think like me, act like me say what I say. And then they have the gall to claim they are tolerant.

satire section is that way -------------------->

 

[Bluedog]

I always treat people as I want to be treated. Civility is more important to me than "winning the debate". Half the time flaming starts when people either post with their egos or defend their positions rather than look for common ground.

IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Plasmaball]

notice how short this thread is, since there is no real problems here

 

[Statistikhengst]

The most intolerance I have seen on this board is from one side. Think like me, act like me say what I say. And then they have the gall to claim they are tolerant.

Uhhh, which side?