Kevin's Watch

Where do you stand on tolerance?

Surely it is better to be tolerant than intolerant [in the main], but doesn't this imply that we in some way reserve the right to be intolerant. When we are tolerant of something, is it not implicit in the understanding that our tolerance is contingent upon something other - that under different circumstances we would be in tolerant of the thing. I tolerate my kids being over-boisterous on Christmas eve - they are exited and so I let it pass.

When I'm tolerant of something am I not in effect setting myself up as judge, jury and executioner - and often in respect of things of which I have no right to judge in the first place. But of course it can't be neglected in all cases; there are things of which it is right to be intolerant. That which harms others is not to be tolerated - as Thomas Mann said "Tolerance of evil is a crime". Well yes - but here we are saying that it is intolerance that is the acceptable side, and we are talking about tolerance, not it's opposite. So where then are the cases where tolerance itself is the right course to be taking, rather than simply eschewing judgement altogether.

Judgement is a slippery beast as well. Aside from the 'let he who has never sinned' maxim, to what extent should we allow ourselves free reign to judge. We do it with gay abandon; a man comes into the shop at 6.30 in the morning and buys a bottle of Thunderbird Wine; I judge him. A group of far-right skinheads march through London on the evening news sig-heiling and raising their arms; I judge them. My work college comes in to work wearing a pair of dayglow orange trainers; I judge him [or at least his taste]. So it seems that if I'm to make any headway on where to apply my intolerance, it seems that judgement will be an inevitable part of it. In reality it seems, I can no more eschew judgement than I can tolerance. I don't like it much - but if I'm to [well] judge what is evil and must be treated to a good dose of intolerance, then I needs must exercise at least a degree of my faculty of judgement and this will inevitably lead me into the ground of tolerance.

I think that about sums it up - in my judgement.

I don't know when tolerance became a bad thing. I guess that's a sign how far propaganda has influenced us.

It depends what you're tolerant of. Not everything is deserving of tolerance. Evil, for instance (as Pete mentions). But there are more subtle examples we could name.

Also, tolerance is too often used as a euphemism for acceptance/approval. There is a difference between these words, but that difference is blurred in today's militant PC culture. Hell, this distinction is blurred in the opening post here! You can still judge something that you tolerate. You can tolerate something without approving it.

"Tolerance" is used as a way to force society into conformity. And it's not conformity to a neutral view, but one that aligns with a specific political orientation (we all know which one). And any nonconformity to that view is treated with (you guessed it) intolerance. So it's a disingenuous, hypocritical euphemism, not a general principle. It's an attempt to turn one's own intolerance--the desire to shut down opposing views--into a virtue.

To some degree, conformity is part of society. You conform when you bathe. When you don't walk around naked. When you walk down the street without shoving people. When you say "Please" and "Thank you". When you eat with a fork.

And this conformity evolves. Pissing on the floor in the dining hall used to be de rigueur, now it's frowned upon.

Who complains about "force"? Those who don't want to change as conformity evolves, and are fighting a losing battle. Hence the myths about "militant culture" etc. Change the narrative in the hopes of turning things around. Or at least justifying resistance. Glorify independence; denigrate conformity; invent boogey men to hate.

Why don't they want to change? They feel like they are losing something that they covet.

Zarathustra wrote: but one that aligns with a specific political orientation (we all know which one). And any nonconformity to that view is treated with (you guessed it) intolerance.

Exactly. We ALL know which ones...except the actual intolerant ones.
People who think "militant PC" is an existential threat...but climate change is a political issue, not an actual/physical/existential threat.

Tolerance is analogue to biology.
Your body integrates, tolerates, adjust to, and cooperates with a ton of shit that allows you to be...

It DOESN't tolerate things that kill it.
[[point--many of those killing things are ITSELF]]

A multi-racial/multi-cultural body can tolerate multiple races and cultures---EXCEPT the one that hates other races/culture...
Our culture can tolerate ALL religions---except the one that insists we are a "Christian Nation."

[[Flip side truth---"Pure" cultures/societies DIE. that is a fact. They don't die cuz outsiders ruin/infect it. They die from purity...which, btw, is always irrational/false/intolerant purity]]

A tolerant society can apparently "tolerate"---
for instance---
congressman/senators who are white supremacists, say we have 100 drug-smuggling Mexicans for every one good student---
who says we only take immigrants as long as we have more white babies than brown babies---

We can tolerate a poster who says
"Ebonics is "proven" to be a "degenerate" form of English" and that that is not a racist statement.

But GOD FORBID society disapprove of people who hate coloured, fags, trannies, sand-n*ers,...make jokes about cunts, bitches, and think random dicks commenting in public about their tits and asses is just boys being boys, or an awkward flirting by good men.

Conformity is part of society? I thought diversity was more highly prized by those who champion tolerance. (This is another disingenuous, hypocritical term used by one side of the political divide.) Haven't heard many singing the praises of conformity.

We're talking about words, beliefs, etc., not pissing on the floor. This discussion has nothing to do with hygiene, manners, or eating habits. Society absolutely does NOT depend upon conformity of ideas, beliefs, or words. In fact, nonconformity in this arena is exactly what the 1st amendment was supposed to protect.

When students riot on campus to keep certain speakers from speaking, I think "militant PC culture" is not a myth. When Antifa shows up with weapons to counter a protest about Civil War statues, "militant PC culture" is not a myth. I didn't invent these boogey men.

I will proudly accept the charge of glorifying independence and denigrating conformity! These are founding principles of our country.

[Note: I wrote my previous post without having read Peter's final paragraph. He does indeed deal with the issue of judgment. I was incorrect to say that he blurred the line.]

Vraith, you don't think that violence used to stifle free speech is a serious issue?

I'm not sure what climate change has to do with this discussion. Or biology.

Vraith wrote:A multi-racial/multi-cultural body can tolerate multiple races and cultures---EXCEPT the one that hates other races/culture...
Our culture can tolerate ALL religions---except the one that insists we are a "Christian Nation."

Our society tolerates more than your particular worldview. The 1st amendment necessitates this. You don't have to like racists, but you do have to tolerate their right to voice their opinions. See, there's that distinction again that your side seems to miss. The freedom of speech protects even speech which you find to be abhorrent. That protection is a tolerance of such speech and such views--which is not the same as approval! Everyone is free to think or say whatever position they want. THAT is true tolerance. You're just making my point. You are making a case for intolerance of that which you don't approve of. So you're not really for tolerance. You are for conformity to your worldview.

If you approve of something, there is no need to tolerate it. You can only tolerate things you don't approve of! Tolerance is *only* meaningful in the context of things you don't like.

Zarathustra wrote: I'm not sure what climate change has to do with this discussion. Or biology.

You don't have to like racists, but you do have to tolerate their right to voice their opinions. See, there's that distinction again that your side seems to miss.

The first...has a lot to do with it. In part, but not only because, related to second:

I get that distinction just fine, thanks, and so do most people I know. I don't care much about them voicing opinions...I'll argue against it, especially the very many that are fact/evidence free.
But they don't want to only voice opinions---they want those opinions validated and enforced in law/policy/practice.

They can say what they want...the First says so [and also allows others to speak back, protest]...but they want the next---which violates everything else in the concrete, on the ground, in acts.
They don't want just the right to say "Women belong in the kitchen."
They want the power to KEEP them in the kitchen.

[[The right in gov't has a fair number of people who don't know fuck-all about ANY science, let alone climate science, not only saying what they want about it, but using power to stop any action on it---even actions that would be objectively good EVEN IF people weren't responsible for it. Which they are.

Your body can tolerate/adapt/adjust for tons of substances/infections---but some are intolerable if you want to survive. Your mind can tolerate many memes, irrationals, and ideologies---but certain ones kill thought. Precisely parallel uphill to cultures/societies]]

Zarathustra wrote:Conformity is part of society? I thought diversity was more highly prized by those who champion tolerance. (This is another disingenuous, hypocritical term used by one side of the political divide.) Haven't heard many singing the praises of conformity.

We're talking about words, beliefs, etc., not pissing on the floor. This discussion has nothing to do with hygiene, manners, or eating habits. Society absolutely does NOT depend upon conformity of ideas, beliefs, or words. In fact, nonconformity in this arena is exactly what the 1st amendment was supposed to protect.

When students riot on campus to keep certain speakers from speaking, I think "militant PC culture" is not a myth. When Antifa shows up with weapons to counter a protest about Civil War statues, "militant PC culture" is not a myth. I didn't invent these boogey men.

I will proudly accept the charge of glorifying independence and denigrating conformity! These are founding principles of our country.

[Note: I wrote my previous post without having read Peter's final paragraph. He does indeed deal with the issue of judgment. I was incorrect to say that he blurred the line.]

Actually I completely agree with Wayfriend .. of course conformity is a social necessity.. and indivisible from the social compact THATS WHY we dont piss on floors ... WHY WE DONT TOLERATE people exposing their genitalia in public, why we conform and comply with road rules .. why we dont shove people in queues or as we walk down the street.

Humans ALWAYS conform to societal rules and expectations.

Tolerance I would think was a good thing for an individual .. but it would possibly depend on what is considered needing tolerating. Then enters judgement, discernment etc.

I agree judgement isnt a dirty word though it may be considered such by religious ideologies.. perhaps. But we make judgements every day, its interconnected to determining priorities, making choices big and small, deciding what we do with our lives.

However, there are arguably not so useful kinds of judging .. and those judgements are predominantly personal in nature I think.

So judgements are useful and not so useful lol Thats not helpful at all. But I think we each know which is which.

I very much agree with Vs points .. some valid issues right there imv.

Skyweir wrote:Actually I completely agree with Wayfriend .. of course conformity is a social necessity.. and indivisible from the social compact THATS WHY we dont piss on floors ... WHY WE DONT TOLERATE people exposing their genitalia in public, why we conform and comply with road rules .. why we dont shove people in queues or as we walk down the street.

Maybe you or WF should start a thread about pissing and genitalia. You seem to want to talk about those topics very much. This thread is not about those topics.

Skyweir wrote:Humans ALWAYS conform to societal rules and expectations.

Always? You put it in all caps, so you must really mean it. But it's so obviously false, I can't imagine why you'd have this impression. Do you have kids? Do you remember the 60s? How about the Ferguson or Baltimore riots? Rap music? Rock music? We've ALWAYS had rebels and rebellious behavior. And sometimes those rebels were the ones who moved our society forward. Conformity--like tolerance--is only good when you're conforming to things that are good. It's not good in itself. Glorifying either conformity or tolerance as things that are universally good is just naive.

Oh dear ... is it not clear that I am referring to generalities ie generally speaking?

As a whole individuals comply with the rules and expectations of the pack. When they dont they are cast to the margins .. hence your rebel point.

Of course people are people, are people. There are individuals that go out of their way to break socially established laws and rules. But in general compliance is an societal expectation.

I wasnt a teen in the 60s .. but yes music throughout the ages has been a way individuals choose to challenge the establishment and the status quo But within any given media even rebels comply with the majority of societal expectations.

Sociopaths being just another exception

Tolerance:
An event , object or concept that you do not like or disapprove of but are
willingly will bear the issue. Not a major or critical real life changer.

eg.. I can't stand my armpits but am willing to tolerate them.

Ok

wayfriend wrote:I don't know when tolerance became a bad thing. I guess that's a sign how far propaganda has influenced us.

Thomas Paine on Counterfeit Tolerance

Tolerance is not the opposite intoleration, but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience, the other of granting it

.

Thanks for the discussion guys; it's a measure of the strength of your respective arguments that with each post I find myself, Trump like ( only kidding - sorry Z!) abandoning my position held at the end of the previous post and flipping to the opposite side of the fence.

Oh frailty, thy name is Peter!

It doesn't matter how often it is successfull, or whether it is ever successful. Attempting to prevent someone from expressing a view you do not like is an act of intolerance. The person trying to do that is intolerant. It doesn't mean everyone who shares most of the intolerant person's views is intolerant. Especially, obviously, if they do not share the view that nobody should be allowed to express a view they don't like.

Vraith wrote:
Seriously....too much PC, too much intolerance of non-PC is the threat we're facing????
REALLY?
The threat is we don't have enough exposure to the false, the vile, and the stupid???

What the actual fuck is wrong with people?

Jesus, take a breath, V. Something can be a problem without being The Problem. And no one is saying that we don't have enough exposure to vile/false/stupid. You know that's a strawman. Advocating for the right to speak is not the same as advocating for the specific content of that speech. It's ironic that you're ranting against the false and stupid by spewing false and stupid comments.

Fist and Faith wrote:It doesn't matter how often it is successfull, or whether it is ever successful. Attempting to prevent someone from expressing a view you do not like is an act of intolerance. The person trying to do that is intolerant. It doesn't mean everyone who shares most of the intolerant person's views is intolerant. Especially, obviously, if they do not share the view that nobody should be allowed to express a view they don't like.

It wasn't the right that shot Steve Scalise, the FRC, or that vandalized Tucker Carlson's home, or drove conservatives out of restaurants, or has silenced, stalked, and battered conservative speakers on campus, or has repeatedly assaulted people for the crime of wearing MAGA hats.

And before someone plays the "whatabout" game with the idjit who ran his car through the protesters at the "Unite the Right" rally, let's keep in mind that no one - no one - defended that guy. Meanwhile, the Democrat leadership has provided cover for, excused, or incited the above behavior.

And it's all couched in the guise of "fighting intolerance", which is obviously BS to anyone capable of critical thinking. The far left has become the New Puritans, demanding strict ideological purity, and Inquisition-level punishment for heretics.

If you believe that any of the abhorrent, scorched-Earth behavior and protests over the course of the last two years are justified, you have no business talking about tolerance.

Fist and Faith wrote: Attempting to prevent someone from expressing a view you do not like is an act of intolerance. The person trying to do that is intolerant.

Where do you, or anyone, draw the line between opposition and intolerance? No matter where, you're going to end up between a rock and a hard place at some point.
Not just you...me, everyone, every view.
There are some pragmatic answers...though they're mostly case by case. There is not a pure axiomatic/pure principle answer in a general case. Tolerance in general/broadly is the superior position to take.
But in particular instances, tolerance equals destruction/extinction. Intolerance is the only viable survival option, AND the only principled, and/or logical-rational, and/or ethical and/or moral answer/response.

Z wrote: Jesus, take a breath, V. [[[snip]]]And no one is saying that we don't have enough exposure to vile/false/stupid. You know that's a strawman.

I'm breathing fine. I keep telling people to imagine me laughing not screaming when they're reading what I'm typing. They don't listen.

And whatever you think no one is saying, they ARE saying it all over the place, even if YOU aren't, even if people here aren't. People ARE. Constantly. Everywhere.
You do realize that [[roughly, from memory, don't recall the EXACT singles digits, but the tens digits are right]]
80% of the right/repubs, [and even 40something% of left/dems]] think PC is a major problem? [[and they don't even agree on what, precisely, it is]].
That, plus the fact that every other thing I said in my previous is factually so, means it's not a strawman.

And I can easily tolerate some dingus/dingette who thinks vaccines cause illnesses/autism.
But if you tolerate that person not vaccinating their child---you've got a problem. And the answer is you CHARGE that dingus/ette for all the costs of treatment for anyone exposed to that kid who gets sick, and charge them with homicide for everyone who dies from it.
I can easily tolerate people of a religious bent...
But every Catholic who knew/knows or suspects priestly abuse and didn't/doesn't call the cops and testify [[including the Pope]] and put the fuckers in jail needs to be in jail themselves. Anything else is intolerable...and that intolerance is GOOD.

There are incalculable numbers of similar. [[good cops cover for bad cops all the time, good teachers cover for bad ones, good soldiers cover for bad ones, good executives cover for bad ones...doing so MAKES THEM BAD. It's intolerable. Good Rep's cover for Trump...and it's bloody wrong.]]

And seriously...the largest groups of intolerant people are the people bitching about intolerance as the issue.
You'd be very hard pressed to find completely public/visible that are more intolerant [as a percentage of group membership] and "PC" [[pc of the other flavor]] than the White, Male, Republican members of the House of Representatives.

Vraith wrote:
Seriously....too much PC, too much intolerance of non-PC is the threat we're facing????
REALLY?
The threat is we don't have enough exposure to the false, the vile, and the stupid???

What the actual fuck is wrong with people?

This ^

And the irony is comically astounding.

Totally with you V man!

I think its an interesting distinction that Thomas Paine makes re tolerance and intolerance, asserting tolerance is merely a counterfeit of intolerance.

To my mind it seems a intentional manipulation of terminology tbh .. though I cant argue with PCness being the new puratanic movement. But again its aims are at least positive.

Can you condone hate speech? Can anyone condone hate crimes? Can anyone condone racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance or discriminations of any kind?

I cant.

And kudos Pete, it takes a great man to concede a change of heart and your summation made me lol