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

[Foxfyre]

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?

 

[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.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I agree completely that the current climate is fraught with dangers. My take on it is that it's a cultural issue. We've become a terribly narcissistic society - and I do mean us, Americans, specifically - and there are examples and causes all around us.

Examples like the Selfie Generation -- hey, have I coined a phrase? Kids all want to be internet celebrities; the proliferation of reality teevee that makes superstars out of people with no discernible talent; cell phones that allow kids to take literally thousands and thousands of pictures of themselves. As for adults, we listen to people like Limbaugh and Levin and Maddow and Schultz and we want to be just as one-sided and closed-minded as they are.

Worse, it all feeds on itself.

As a result of this cultural narcissism, civility is viewed as some kind of capitulation, intolerance is viewed as strength. When we have a significant part of the society that literally does not want to hear opposing views, when they literally want to punish a person for expressing their views, we have a real problem.

If I'm right and it's a cultural issue, it can only be reversed through the culture. By leaders from multiple walks of life who are brave and strong enough to fight against it. I don't see anyone like that on the horizon.

.

 

[Mojo2]

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 watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.

The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.

Here is a link to it.

Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.

Really.

It's THAT good!

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

Intolerance is nothing new. It is only in the past year that the law banning someone from marrying the consenting adult of their choice was partially overturned and states still have the ability to be intolerant on that issue. So as far as a trend goes this is just another blip on the chart. Overall there is a trend towards greater tolerance but it isn't happening overnight.

As far as the intolerance towards holding a bigoted position goes that won't go away either. And even it when it does it will simply be replaced by a different one because there are some who are so insecure they need some way to make themselves feel "superior" to others. This is a part of human nature and try as we might it will take far longer to "evolve" than any of us will be around to observe.

When it comes to being "dangerous" I don't see it that way at all. Short of censorship freedom of speech is the bigots best friend. And no, I don't advocate censorship because the appropriate response to bigotry is public ridicule in my opinion. We the People shape our own society to reflect who we are. Demographics show that we are changing into a more diverse and accepting society than before. Yes, there are throwbacks and reactionaries and ugly incidents because no change is without turmoil. But it is all part of the process.

We the People have a sound basis for our society and I have no doubt that if we were to fall into a coma and waken 100 years hence we would find that while superficial appearances will be different (just as they were 100 years ago) society will still be much as it ever was. And yes, bigotry will still exist only it will probably have dwindled to just treating Atheists as outcasts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.

The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.

Here is a link to it.

Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.

Really.

It's THAT good!

that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.

 

[Asclepias]

In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.

Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?

 

[Derideo_Te]

In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.

Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?

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.

 

[Asclepias]

In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.

Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?

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?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.

That's interesting, because in my experience, those who scream "tolerance" the loudest are usually Conservatives trying to build up tu quoque fallacies.

 

[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".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?

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.

 

[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.

 

[Mac1958]

"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".

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, a lack of fundamental maturity, or some combination therein.

.

 

[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".

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".

 

[Mac1958]

"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".

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.

.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Intolerance is nothing new. It is only in the past year that the law banning someone from marrying the consenting adult of their choice was partially overturned and states still have the ability to be intolerant on that issue. So as far as a trend goes this is just another blip on the chart. Overall there is a trend towards greater tolerance but it isn't happening overnight.

As far as the intolerance towards holding a bigoted position goes that won't go away either. And even it when it does it will simply be replaced by a different one because there are some who are so insecure they need some way to make themselves feel "superior" to others. This is a part of human nature and try as we might it will take far longer to "evolve" than any of us will be around to observe.

When it comes to being "dangerous" I don't see it that way at all. Short of censorship freedom of speech is the bigots best friend. And no, I don't advocate censorship because the appropriate response to bigotry is public ridicule in my opinion. We the People shape our own society to reflect who we are. Demographics show that we are changing into a more diverse and accepting society than before. Yes, there are throwbacks and reactionaries and ugly incidents because no change is without turmoil. But it is all part of the process.

We the People have a sound basis for our society and I have no doubt that if we were to fall into a coma and waken 100 years hence we would find that while superficial appearances will be different (just as they were 100 years ago) society will still be much as it ever was. And yes, bigotry will still exist only it will probably have dwindled to just treating Atheists as outcasts.

Exactly.

A free and democratic society can be messy, and intentionally so; the Framers correctly understood the need of unbridled, full-throated debate in the context of private society concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and that the people alone should resolve these conflicts and controversies absent interference by the government or the courts.

That some might fear this process is understandable, but this is the nature of a truly free society and people, where the people alone define what that society is to be, how it should function, and what is considered appropriate and inappropriate.

As Justice Kennedy observed when addressing the nature of the constitution and democracy:

[The] constitution with a small c is a word that had been used by historians and political theorists for centuries. Constitution with a small c means the sum total of customs and traditions and mores and beliefs and historical heritage that define a people.

Constitution with a small c in this sense was used to some extent by Plato and certainly by Aristotle, Pericles, Locke, Rousseau, Harrington, Jacques Maritain, and Michael Oakeshott. The whole point of official free speech is that the people can define their small-c constitution so that their country has a meaning and a purpose and a history and a destiny, and it’s the small-c constitution that other people look to, that other countries look to, to see what the United States is, what it stands for.

Constitution and Its Promise: Joseph Story Lecture by Justice Anthony Kennedy