The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Intolerant of the Intolerant?
emnmnme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I was part of a discussion group yesterday and the topic shifted to how modern day life is different from life in the fifties. Now I believe that we're a little better off now than people were then thanks to instantaneous communication . Someone else brought up the point, though, that we're also more enlightened than our 1950s counterparts because we're more tolerant. The brief example was, of course, television and the argument was while there was no swearing or lascivious shennanigans, there were few Jews or blacks and no interracial relationships or gays or defenses of communism, etc etc. Today, having an all-white, all-heterosexual cast on a TV sitcom would be 'bizarre.'
I didn't say anything on this at the meeting but I kept thinking, "You just haven't found the right thing to hate, that's all." Our tolerance is overestimated to a point; we're generally critical of hate groups and chastise hate speech because we're disturbed by them. If your son or daughter came home and finally admitted they were gay, well, a little shock but no big deal. You still love 'em. But if a son or daughter came home with a swastika tattoo on their thigh, you'd throw them out on their ear.
Do you consider that intolerance? In the 1950s, a father might try to beat the gayness out of his son and send him to a psychologist. Today, a father might try to beat the racism out of his son and force him into some community service projects benefiting minorities. Ignoring social stigmas, is it ever okay to hate people for their beliefs? If the goal of societies is to promote unity between its citizens, do you accept everyone or are you intolerant of the intolerant?
A little side story but when I was in North Carolina, the Ku Klux Klan marched and, going by the newspapers, the Christians protesting the march jumped the barricades at some point and beat up some marching stragglers when the police guarding the event weren't able to watch.
I didn't say anything on this at the meeting but I kept thinking, "You just haven't found the right thing to hate, that's all." Our tolerance is overestimated to a point; we're generally critical of hate groups and chastise hate speech because we're disturbed by them. If your son or daughter came home and finally admitted they were gay, well, a little shock but no big deal. You still love 'em. But if a son or daughter came home with a swastika tattoo on their thigh, you'd throw them out on their ear.
Do you consider that intolerance? In the 1950s, a father might try to beat the gayness out of his son and send him to a psychologist. Today, a father might try to beat the racism out of his son and force him into some community service projects benefiting minorities. Ignoring social stigmas, is it ever okay to hate people for their beliefs? If the goal of societies is to promote unity between its citizens, do you accept everyone or are you intolerant of the intolerant?
A little side story but when I was in North Carolina, the Ku Klux Klan marched and, going by the newspapers, the Christians protesting the march jumped the barricades at some point and beat up some marching stragglers when the police guarding the event weren't able to watch.
emnmnme on
0
Posts
People don't just "end out" in the KKK. There's groundwork being done by the parents long beforehand. It's not normally as huge a surprise as you'd think. I've never met a skinhead that didn't have a prick for a father. Anecdote? Maybe... but also true. Also, Tolerant isn't some holy answer. It's not even that nice a word. Very different from acceptance.
Personally I think any sort of racial march should be met with waterballoons. I don't care who's doing the marching. From the NAACP to the Michigan Militias and Arian Nation, a public gathering and protest permit should have the stipulation that any onlookers can pelt you with water balloons.
Yes. WWJD?
Hah, yes.
I mean, you have to ask yourself, what are the benefits of tolerating intolerance? Racial, Sexual, Gender, etc tolerance have many positive aspects to them, with not many negatives. Tolerance of intolerant people just doesn't make much sense though. It's like asking, "Should we tolerate pre-meditated murder?" Well, there aren't exactly many positive aspects to that, and the negatives are pretty huge. So what's the point?
Oculus: TheBigDookie | XBL: Dook | NNID: BigDookie
Please tell me you're not seriously comparing the NAACP to the fucking Aryan Nation.
I just hate people who get so caught up in theoretical oversimplifications that they forget what reality looks like.
Seriously, this thread is retarded. How is this even a question?
Sexual oreintation/gender/race != malleable beliefs which are irrational and have no basis and are easily left behind.
You don't choose to be black, you do choose to be an asshole neo-Nazi shithead.
End. Of. Thread.
This is what I'm talking about. It only works if you reduce the groups to "organisations interested in race and society" and then completely ignore everything else about them. Its incredibly fucking stupid.
I wholeheartedly agree.
When did people stop being discerning?
no, seriously. They're so invested in seeming 'fair' that they'll give completely uncritical airtime to the most hateful, ignorant, incoherent retards on issues where there really isn't a sensible opposition.
It's not like you wake up one morning and hate white people today for exploitations that happened long ago.
It's fucking ridiculous, really.
I mean, I constantly hear people noting that Group/Belief X are similar to Group/Belief Y in Superficial/Minor way Z, and thus X = Y.
And I just want to beat their face in with a beer bottle, like that horrible scene in Pan's Labyrinth.
People just have gotten this idea into their heads that's it's somehow not our place to judge, or discern, or evaluate.
Why use the most important faculties that you as a human being are endowed with? How silly! It would be much better to just assume a nihilistic stance, which other stupid people will call moral relavitism, and react to by only taking absolute stances on all issues.
And then we're all good and well fucked, and it's Jesus's fault. The fucker.
Bullshit. Fucking. Bullshit.
I'm sorry -- I don't care how fucking shitty your childhood was; you're a goddamn adult now, so fucking act like one.
Jesus Christ.
My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.
Goddamnit it's not moral relavitism! It's moral equivalency.
Relativism -- relative. Better and worse are relative terms. Evaluative terms. Discerning terms.
Relativism is good.
Nihlism/equivalency is bad.
*fapfapfap*
I think there's a difference between allowing someone, let's say a hippy, to practice hippy-ness and allowing someone to practice racism or hatred-- which is dedicated to stopping other people from being said hippy or other practice.
:P
Oh, and another thing I hate about this bullshit is that it's totally rooted in religion.
I mean, fundamentally, basically all religions require the believer to cede some degree of human reason in favor of divine revelation -- which is just such a fucking insult to the human ability to evaluate. It's basically saying that true knowledge is attainable only by going beyond human reason.
Plus Christianity, in all it's loving of subordination and baseness and meekness really goes overboard in debasing human reason. I hate Paul so fucking much. And so then self-degrading views on human evaluative faculties become indeed a sign of piety and righteousness -- to ignore your ability to examine the world is to be holy!
And so it becomes ingrained in our culture, even as more and more crawl out from under religion, the value remains.
And it pisses me the hell off.
*fapfapfap*
Seriously, though, this whole thread is founded on the hoariest, most cobwebby far-right cliche. "Hur hur - ya libral's ain't so tol'rant of ever'thing, hyuck." No shit. I hate the way that we've allowed that segment of the population to corner the market on arguments based on morality and values - because to me, normative statements of morality are the heart and soul of liberalism. Starving people is wrong. Exploiting people is wrong. Bullying the weak is wrong.
Conservatives are the ones who think that any old atrocity can be justified if it has the weight of tradition behind it, or rich people do it.
It will haunt us for a while still :x
Some of the football players responsible for the campus attitude and feelings came to the second meeting. We had a sort of introduction period for everybody. I stood up and said something to the extent of, "Hello, my name is [uncomfortable putting that out there], and I'm here because I'm an atheist. I feel unable to freely express this fact because of the treatment I've received in the past on this campus."
Five guys in the back held up notes that said "YOUR (sic) GOING TO HELL." Every time anybody else stood up and said anything, they held up the signs. So we kicked them out.
The next time we meet, they're there again, but this time with an administrator. They do the same thing, and we kick them out quicker than before. The day after that, we, the leadership of the group, are approached by the administrator and told that we're no longer allowed to meet and organize because didn't follow our own charter in not tolerating their opinions and beliefs. We made our case in front of the student council, but seeing as how any group that tolerates homosexuality on the campus is immediately looked at as unfit, the hearing lasted about fifteen minutes and the apes on the council handed down the same decision that the administrator did.
All that is to say this: it is wrong, absolutely wrong, to tolerate intolerance because being tolerant of intolerance gives it some sort of creedence thast it absolutely doesn't fucking deserve. If a belief, opinion, whatever, is not founded in reality, it should absolutely not be tolerated.
Fuck 'em. Fuck racists, fuck sexists, fuck homophobes, fuck everybody that has some stupid fucking Pleasentville delusion about life.
I mean, fuck, they're beliefs. Not their race or hair colour or gender or whatever. Their ideas.
The OP is basically 'it's bad to hate people just because they're evil'.
Talk about missing the fucking point of tolerance.
Anyways, as vocal as the comments are getting (as vocal as what would would happen if I mentioned a Jew should be the next President in a 1950s barbershop) women professionals still earn 83% of their male counterparts so I'm just saying we shouldn't have swelled heads. We still have some parallel faults to the 1950s. Racists are people too. They're a social eyesore but there has to be a better solution than hating them.
you cannot be serious with this shit.
That's so... clever! Both groups are angry! So they're the same!
You wanna debate, son, rather than just throwing out pseudo-thought?
Do you believe in right and wrong? Do you, emnmnmnmnme believe that some kinds of activities are wrong because they hurt people?
Because if you don't then we don't have enough common ground to talk.
And if you do you're an astonishing hypocrite.
Some people deserve to die.
Seriously, a person's worth isn't founded in personhood.
Man, I am this close to regressing to my really hateful Nietzche-reading days, where I would talk about how people like that are absolutely not human on the same level as the rest of us, but are in fact human cancer cells, leeching the resources of our society, and how it would be totally just fine to permanently remove them by any means necessary.
But I'm not there yet. Let's give it another page.
I so beat you there. This post time limit is killing me.
Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.
I remember a funny little interview with Toni Morrison where she attended some kind of political event and all the white politicians were exceedingly nice to her, holding her around the shoulder for photo ops and whisking her away to the other side of the room to talk with more white politicians. All the talk didn't amount to anything, she said. She was convinced they were using her to ward off any hints that they don't give black Americans any serious thought.
The stigma against racists is on the rise and there shouldn't be any stigmas against anyone, right?
I once wrote a twenty-three page essay about why it would be totally cool to slaughter people like that. And materialistic, unthinking tools. And the extremely religious.
...This is why I don't read Nietzsche anymore.
Racists make themselves second class citizens by being willfully re-fucking-tarded. I don't think they should be allowed to vote at all, because if you're so fucking stupid as to be a racist, there's no telling what you believe.
You get +10 for Willful Misinterpretation
In other words, quit being thick. There should be stigmas against bad people. It's only dudes like you, busily trying to whip up a bullshit smokescreen for reprehensible behavior, who have any difficulty understanding this.
this statement boggles me. "You could believe anything! Theres no way we can let you vote!" o_O
What would you say racism, not just prejudice, but active racism, usually goes hand in hand with?
I bet all those are bad things, too.
Again, it's meant to protect all the jerks as long as no one interferes with each other.