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

[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.

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

No. Because they made a business decision. It was wrong for people to demand that MSNBC fire him. But I won't fault any business for making a legal business decision that is in its own interest. Lord knows MSNBC has enough trouble trying to stay profitable without losing a lot of the few viewers it has left.

A&E also bowed to angry and--in my opinion--unacceptable pressure to dump Phil Robertson. The difference was they got more pressure from the millions of fans of Duck Dynasty. And they fairly quickly made the decision that they had more to lose by losing those fans than they had to fear from GLAAD. Bashir simply didn't enjoy that kind of fan base.

 

[hunarcy]

that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!

And thus we see that tolerance is not your strong suit. Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and attitudes differ from your own. By dismissing his video because you don't agree with it, you're showing your intolerance. You're free to express such things, but be aware we see your intolerance toward his thinking.

 

[hunarcy]

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?

Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?

 

[hunarcy]

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?

If you tolerate their point of view that does not mean you agree with it. You can debate them or try to sway them if you feel their POV is dangerous. You can even alert Authorities if you feel there is an imminent danger to others. But, we must tolerate their views.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

"Speaking" is doing something.

It is an "action".

Thoughts and opinions are not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

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

No. Because they made a business decision. It was wrong for people to demand that MSNBC fire him. But I won't fault any business for making a legal business decision that is in its own interest. Lord knows MSNBC has enough trouble trying to stay profitable without losing a lot of the few viewers it has left.

A&E also bowed to angry and--in my opinion--unacceptable pressure to dump Phil Robertson. The difference was they got more pressure from the millions of fans of Duck Dynasty. And they fairly quickly made the decision that they had more to lose by losing those fans than they had to fear from GLAAD. Bashir simply didn't enjoy that kind of fan base.

In other words, the people who used their SPEECH are culpable, not those who actually did the firing (an "action").

Do I have that correct?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?

It might be the ones we have to consciously make the choice to allow to be who and what they are. But in my opinion the tolerant person will allow people to be who and what they are so long as no contribution or participation by anybody else is required.

Again who gets to make the rules as who is tolerable and who is not? Is a Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin not tolerable but a Martin Bashir or Ed Schultz is? Who gets to decide that? Who gets to write the rules of who will be tolerable and off limits to organized vendettas and who is fair game for them?

If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres? Appreciate her humor? Enjoy her act?

If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson? Enjoy Duck Dynasty? Laugh at the intentional humor?

If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?

 

[hunarcy]

I can't take anything you say seriously.

Then, why are you wasting time debating her? You've just shown you aren't willing to accept her point of view.

 

[Asclepias]

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

While I agree there is a difference between voicing an opinion and doing something (taking action) the latter does not normally occur without having the thought first. Thoughts are dangerous only if expressed and used to influence actions.

Silencing those thoughts are a tricky subject as you pointed out because of the question of who is fit to be the judge? IMO I have a duty to argue and destroy if possible any thoughts that I feel lead to stupidity in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry etc. I see nothing wrong with advocating the financial ruin of someone promoting burning crosses on my neighbors lawn. If that person can be locked up all the better.

 

[hunarcy]

If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres? Appreciate her humor? Enjoy her act?

If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson? Enjoy Duck Dynasty? Laugh at the intentional humor?

If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?

It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans. We should, as much as we're able, love all around us. We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

Again, a free and democratic society can be messy. Criminal and civil law exist to address those who cross the line, making them subject to criminal prosecution and/or civil action when they do so; otherwise, it’s up to private society alone to determine what is ‘intolerance,’ and to admonish those who engage in inappropriate speech or actions.

As for: “…this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.”

What exactly do you propose be done to ‘disallow’ those whom you perceive to be acting in an ‘offensive’ or ‘intolerant’ manner?

 

[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?

Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?

No. Sooner or later their time will come to influence people to harm or oppress others. I'd rather not waste intelligent lives simply being tolerant of intolerant people.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?

Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?

It might be the ones we have to consciously make the choice to allow to be who and what they are. But in my opinion the tolerant person will allow people to be who and what they are so long as no contribution or participation by anybody else is required.

Again who gets to make the rules as who is tolerable and who is not? Is a Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin not tolerable but a Martin Bashir or Ed Schultz is? Who gets to decide that? Who gets to write the rules of who will be tolerable and off limits to organized vendettas and who is fair game for them?

If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres? Appreciate her humor? Enjoy her act?

If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson? Enjoy Duck Dynasty? Laugh at the intentional humor?

If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?

EVERYONE makes their own "list". That's the whole point.

 

[hunarcy]

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

While I agree there is a difference between voicing an opinion and doing something (taking action) the latter does not normally occur without having the thought first. Thoughts are dangerous only if expressed and used to influence actions.

Silencing those thoughts are a tricky subject as you pointed out because of the question of who is fit to be the judge? IMO I have a duty to argue and destroy if possible any thoughts that I feel lead to stupidity in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry etc. I see nothing wrong with advocating the financial ruin of someone promoting burning crosses on my neighbors lawn. If that person can be locked up all the better.

So, you support censorship as long as you are the one choosing who should be censored. Burning crosses is an overt act and infringes on the rights of others. I applaud you for wanting to stop that. However, everyone is free to think whatever they choose.

 

[Asclepias]

If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres? Appreciate her humor? Enjoy her act?

If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson? Enjoy Duck Dynasty? Laugh at the intentional humor?

If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?

It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans. We should, as much as we're able, love all around us. We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.

At what point should that tolerance end? Sometimes you misjudge that time period and you end up with a holocaust.

 

[hunarcy]

Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?

Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?

No. Sooner or later their time will come to influence people to harm or oppress others. I'd rather not waste intelligent lives simply being tolerant of intolerant people.

More proof that you advocate censorship as long as you're the censor.

 

[hunarcy]

If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres? Appreciate her humor? Enjoy her act?

If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson? Enjoy Duck Dynasty? Laugh at the intentional humor?

If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?

It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans. We should, as much as we're able, love all around us. We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.

At what point should that tolerance end? Sometimes you misjudge that time period and you end up with a holocaust.

Obviously when it moves from opinion to action and people's rights are being infringed, that's when toleration should end and action taken.

 

[Foxfyre]

that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!

And thus we see that tolerance is not your strong suit. Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and attitudes differ from your own. By dismissing his video because you don't agree with it, you're showing your intolerance. You're free to express such things, but be aware we see your intolerance toward his thinking.

Which is his right. I thought the guy was brilliant in that video. I don't fully agree with his point of view on every single point, but I think he got most of it right. But of course, if he is right, a dedicated leftist would not be able to look at his point of view critically and with an open mind. They would dismiss it out of hand as partisan drivel. Which is their right.

Tolerance means we allow the speaker his point of view without physically and/or materially punishing him. And we allow DT to dismiss him as partisan drivel without physically and/or materially punishing DT. And you and I should be allowed to choose which we think has the more defensible point of view without anybody coming after us to physically and/or materially punish us. And if we are all tolerant, we can believe each other are all wet, wrong, or hyper partisan or whatever, and still love and/or appreciate each other.

 

[Asclepias]

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

While I agree there is a difference between voicing an opinion and doing something (taking action) the latter does not normally occur without having the thought first. Thoughts are dangerous only if expressed and used to influence actions.

Silencing those thoughts are a tricky subject as you pointed out because of the question of who is fit to be the judge? IMO I have a duty to argue and destroy if possible any thoughts that I feel lead to stupidity in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry etc. I see nothing wrong with advocating the financial ruin of someone promoting burning crosses on my neighbors lawn. If that person can be locked up all the better.

So, you support censorship as long as you are the one choosing who should be censored. Burning crosses is an overt act and infringes on the rights of others. I applaud you for wanting to stop that. However, everyone is free to think whatever they choose.

I support self censorship. If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you. Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and openly express that thought.

 

[Asclepias]

It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans. We should, as much as we're able, love all around us. We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.

At what point should that tolerance end? Sometimes you misjudge that time period and you end up with a holocaust.

Obviously when it moves from opinion to action and people's rights are being infringed, that's when toleration should end and action taken.

How or when is that time period defined? At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?