|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Intolerance will not be tolerated!
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
We must not tolerate the intolerant. We must stand up against the tyranny of intolerance. We must continue to push for the equal rights of all people and the right to free speech.
Karl Popper said:-
"If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
But how far can you go in defending a tolerant society?
Should we tolerate any sort of bigotry? If we tolerate bigotry are we taking a step backwards from society's advancement?
Do we keep pushing culture in the direction where the intolerant get pushed more and more to the outside?
What if they then cry that we are being intolerant of them?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I am not convinced that we should be intolerant of anyone, even the intolerant. For precisely these reasons (if we make "tolerance" the fundamental virtue, why is that any better - at a basic level - than intolerance, or hatred, or whatever).
What we should not do is accept that they are representative or that actions taken against others should be acceptable. We should tolerate EDL, but we should not let then terrorise others.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We must not tolerate the intolerant.
Yes we must.
In 1951 the Australian people voted in a referendum to defeat a move to ban the Communist Party.
The Communist Party at the time was hardline Stalinist, and one of the most intolerant organisations in the country - intolerant of democracy, liberalism, religion and anything else opposed to its ultra-narrow ideology.
And yet even at the height of the Cold War a majority of Australians believed that true pluralism meant freedom of expression even for those most opposed to allowing it to others.
That is the true meaning of tolerance.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We must not tolerate the intolerant. We must stand up against the tyranny of intolerance. We must continue to push for the equal rights of all people and the right to free speech.
Karl Popper said:-
"If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Should we tolerate any sort of bigotry? If we tolerate bigotry are we taking a step backwards from society's advancement?
Well Boogie, I'm with Popper on this one. Your view (which you've expressed before) seems to me to fail at the basic step that there is no contradiction of pressing for the equal rights of all people and allowing expression of opposition to that.
For a quick example, many people who be happy with the denial of many rights to those serving some prison sentences. Is it not permissible to argue that a person who has committed murder should not only be deprived of personal liberty for the term of their sentence, but also of the right to vote?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well Boogie, I'm with Popper on this one. Your view (which you've expressed before)
No I haven't! I'm not sure of my view - that's why I asked the question!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
My recollection is that you did at an early stage of the Russ Hell thread - if not there, it was on a thread similar to this. Regardless of a previous expression of the opinion, I don't agree with the opinion you're now propounding while totally accepting your right to argue for it.
Kaplan Corday's reference to the proposed banning her of the Communist Party gains further strength when you realise the history of the banning. It started out with legislation passed by the newly elected Menzies government. That legislation was found by the High Court to be beyond power and thus ineffective. Menzies then sought a constitutional amendment to permit banning, and that in its turn failed at the ballot box. Despite this, the government was then returned at the next election, and the same political party remained in power until 1972 - a total period of government by the one party of 23 years.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
It really does depend on what you mean by "tolerance". I mean, I don't think we should criminalise bigotry itself, but that doesn't mean we should let bigots harm those they are bigoted against, nor does it mean we shouldn't speak out against bigotry when it is encountered.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I found another useful quote -
“Tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.”
If we don't speak up, then we are enabling it imo. Years ago I met many racist teachers (through ignorance, not malice) and I usually spoke up - but sometimes let it pass.
At my camera club (frequented mostly by men) there are many sexist comments. I deal with it by loudly shouting 'sexist' but in a friendly, bantering tone. I get on well with the people there so they don't get offended - and I hope I plant a small seed of thought for them.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ProgenitorDope
Apprentice
# 16648
|
Posted
I'd say the problem with a set policy of being intolerant of intolerance is one of those "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" things. Namely, like with most things, someone takes it way too far.
There was an opinion piece in the Washington Post back in October that talked about a university's student body's reaction to a article in the student newspaper that "criticized the Black Lives Matter movement — not the movement’s mission or motivations, but its tactics and messaging, particularly those of its more anti-cop fringe elements." Short version: in the wake of it, the author was repeatedly called a racist, copies were stolen and reportedly burned, and the student government voted to cut funding to the paper.
If you asked the students they'd probably say they were being intolerant of intolerance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out-on-college-campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f0 3c48c96ac2_story.html
Posts: 50 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Equal rights and the freedom of speech means that we must be ready to hear what everyone says, however much we dislike it. I think that this is healthy, as it helps to reinforce our stance against, hone our argument, and think it through.
When it comes to browbeating others into accepting our viewpoint, those who are intolerant of intolerance are perhaps as guilty as anyone.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
False equivalence.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Different people have differing and sometimes conflicting values and naturally express those values in how they live; this leads to conflict in the real world, each side accusing the other of intolerance.
Why can't a nudist walk the streets and shops nude? Because society is intolerant of his behaving according to his values, or because he would be behaving in a way intolerant of the values of those who don't want to be exposed to nudity outside their own home?
We could probably come up with a hundred examples of behavior appropriate in a unified community but intrusive in a diverse community, and yet saying "now that we are diverse you can't do that anymore" is "intolerant."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...that doesn't mean we should let bigots harm those they are bigoted against, nor does it mean we shouldn't speak out against bigotry when it is encountered.
I think this is the crucial point.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am a member of several disenfranchised groups. I don't want tolerance, but liberation.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
But how far can you go in defending a tolerant society?
Surely nobody believes that anything at all should be tolerated.
I often hear the argument that of course there has to be limits, but at least expressed opinions should be tolerated. Usually this includes arts, films etc etc.
But this, to me, fails to see that expressing an opinion is an action which can be harmful. We all know that the Hebrews had one word covering words and things, and I think there is a lot of truth in this.
Where is the basis for making tolerance into the key virtue?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm proud to live in a country where a law abiding Salafist Muslim can propound what should be done to gay men according to his sacred text's commentary and the tradition of those with the power to implement it as they faithfully do now in Raqqa.
If I was able to interact with him I'd like to express my appreciation for his restraint, for his honouring the law of the land. Should I say anything else?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm proud to live in a country where a law abiding Salafist Muslim can propound what should be done to gay men according to his sacred text's commentary and the tradition of those with the power to implement it as they faithfully do now in Raqqa.
If I was able to interact with him I'd like to express my appreciation for his restraint, for his honouring the law of the land. Should I say anything else?
Well, erm, yeah?
Also, the country you live in would quite possibly arrest your Salafist friend for inciting violence?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How was he doing that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But how far can you go in defending a tolerant society?
Should we tolerate any sort of bigotry? If we tolerate bigotry are we taking a step backwards from society's advancement?
I don't know that the question can be answered at such a general level. 'Toleration' is a broad term: it can lump together anything from allowing people to live to letting anything people say pass without criticism.
Also, there's a question of whether or not a policy of toleration as a society is best undertaken by the state, or by a mix of approaches among individual forums.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So what else should I say to him Anglican't? What useful criticism Dafyd?
A deeply beloved relative is a homophobic, sexist, libertarian, holocaust denier. What's my Christian duty to him? Cut him off like the rest of the family do? Confront him? What with?
[ 22. November 2015, 21:50: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
IMO, depends on his age. If he is over 60 then all you can do is tolerate -- there is not a prayer of changing the old coot. If you can get it to where he avoids certain subjects entirely with you (and he should be used to it, since probably most people are the same) then you will be fine.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's not a hope in hell of changing anybody regardless of age. The most you can do is be yourself respectfully and lovingly. Being the opposite won't encourage any change in anybody, and is likely to destroy whatever thoughts they might have had themselves of changing.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's not a hope in hell of changing anybody regardless of age.
Some people can change such as the Phelps daughters.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Intolerance frequently goes well beyond speaking negatively about things, and extends to speaking against people and then trying to force people to comply with the intolerant viewpoint.
Such intolerance ought not be tolerated in a spirit of tolerance, any more than "peacekeepers" ought to sit idly by when gunfire breaks out because they are "peaceful".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I am a member of several disenfranchised groups.
"Disenfranchised" by whose and what definition?
quote:
I don't want tolerance, but liberation.
How would that look?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm proud to live in a country where a law abiding Salafist Muslim can propound what should be done to gay men according to his sacred text's commentary and the tradition of those with the power to implement it as they faithfully do now in Raqqa.
If I was able to interact with him I'd like to express my appreciation for his restraint, for his honouring the law of the land. Should I say anything else?
There's a world of difference between allowing expression of a viewpoint (of which I am in favour) and actively propounding violence against others. If your friend says: "our texts say that this is the proper manner in which to treat gays, but of course that is out of date and no longer applies" there is no trouble. If the qualification is missing, then it's pretty close to a criminal offence, if not over the boundary.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oh, so I should have called the police?! Hmmm. Owen Jones is right then, it IS impossible to talk to IS. Because of our utter failure to be Jesus to them. Let alone to go beyond Him, as we MUST, and apologize for a start.
I suppose that makes me a 'criminal' too, expressing that desire.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's not a hope in hell of changing anybody regardless of age. The most you can do is be yourself respectfully and lovingly. Being the opposite won't encourage any change in anybody, and is likely to destroy whatever thoughts they might have had themselves of changing.
This, and maintain a relationship in which humour can infiltrate. An elderly lady I knew was racist to the core, I wasn't going to change that, but we had the kind of relationship where she could say 'I know you love everyone including them but....' and we would both laugh. I always responded by saying what 'their' side of it may be, and then we changed the subject. She did mellow a little, over time. She certainly shouldn't have been arrested, she was as entitled to her point of view as I was entitled to mine.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
That's the thing. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, but not necessarily to act on it if such action will cause harm to someone else.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
That sort of response is probably easier if you're of the dominant group, which I am, and while agreeable to a point, I have been enlightened by my black brother in law, Chinese sister in law, and Métis business partner would tend to disagree. My response is usually "what did I hear you say?", with a genuine inquiring tone, and to follow up when possible or required with something to the effect that "you mustn't have meant to say it". I think the confrontation is absolutely required, both naming the offence and kindly correcting it in a way that doesn't cause the person to feel the way a person of said minority might feel in return. None of it has to be aggressive, and none of it humourous.
It must be more nuanced that allowing people to behave in offensive ways because they are entitled to do so. It is only by correcting it that we will see tolerance. Everyone knows the right answer to these tolerance questions.
[ 23. November 2015, 20:59: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I think whether or not one “tolerates intolerance” depends a lot on the outcome that is being hoped for. The problem with treating people rudely on account of their (quite possibly reprehensible) opinions is that it frequently entrenches them in their position. If you actually want them to reconsider, IME respectful dialogue is likely to be more successful. Often when I have seen people on the internetz abusing those with whom they disagree, the main aim is to prove their own rightness so they can feel superior. It does nothing to change the other person’s position.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's the thing. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, but not necessarily to act on it if such action will cause harm to someone else.
That is akin to the disagreement/discrimination dichotomy which would appear to be the basis of the longest running thread in Hell at the moment.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It looks like universities have taken this idea a step further with their 'safe space' policies.
Are 'safe spaces' a justification for shutting out ideas?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Are 'safe spaces' a justification for shutting out ideas?
What is being asked for is far from a "safe space" - it's censorship. There's nothing at all wrong with the idea of a space that is "safe" - if I, as an adult, don't want to deal with someone's opinion right now, because I'm tired, or feeling emotionally fragile or whatever, I can stay home and not invite arseholes in to my living room. There's nothing wrong with some "home" spaces at a university being places of "safety".
It's absurd to extend this idea to, for example, a debating society. If you don't feel strong enough to encounter robust debate on a particular topic, don't go.
If you're a law student, and don't want to hear the law surrounding rape discussed, find a different career - if you become a practicing lawyer, some of your clients will be rapists. Even if you don't take criminal cases, there's no guarantee that accusations of rape won't appear in the middle of some seemingly unrelated commercial law case, and you can't serve your clients if you can't deal with that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look at the grammar. Did they change, or did someone else change them?
It isn't typically an either/or thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You must live among much more flexible people than I do. Missouri mules, all of them.
My point was that we do not live or act in isolation. Other people affect us. Newton's Laws of Motion can be applied to our behaviour in a way. The impetus to change state does not come from nowhere.
Granted how we interact can affect the efficacy of what we are trying to impart. The more forceful the confrontation, often the greater the reaction against. Like some non-Newtonian fluids.
[ 26. November 2015, 16:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look at the grammar. Did they change, or did someone else change them?
It isn't typically an either/or thing.
Actually, I think it is. If I've understood correctly, what Lamb Chopped is saying, is that we can't change someone else. Only they can change themselves. We can try to persuade them. But if they aren't persuaded, or if they aren't listening, there's nothing we can do about it. The only person any of us can change is ourself.
That's a very fundamental point. I was well into my thirties before I began to grasp it. A lot of people never do.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The point of the physics lesson I posted is that we are influenced by other people. Yes, we must allow them to influence us, but that is not the same as them not having an effect.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
LilBuddha, we cross posted.
Other people affect you. You affect other people. However, there's only one of those directions where you have any control over the reaction. How you are affected by their actions, you do have some control over. You are answerable for that. How they are affected by your actions, you don't.
You may have some ability to influence how they react, but only within the bit you control - whether you are polite, or whether you shout at them - but that's still your bit, your side of the interaction. That bit, you have some responsibility for. But if you are aggressive, you can't do anything about whether they turn the other cheek or thump you.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It looks like universities have taken this idea a step further with their 'safe space' policies.
Are 'safe spaces' a justification for shutting out ideas?
It is difficult to tell looking at it through the lens of unsympathetic reporting and opinion pieces. A student union is within its rights to refuse to let people invite neo-Nazis speak in its building, even as part of a debate. An organisation has no obligation to give people a platform if all they're going to do with it is verbally abuse the organisation's members. Where that shades off into shutting down points of view merely because people don't want to hear different opinions is a judgement call.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
When Christina Hoff Summmers spoke at Georgetown University, the talk was held in a public university space.
Demonstrators held up signs which said things like "Trigger warning--antifeminist". They were videotaped and the tape posted on YouTube. The University spokespeople said it had to be taken down because the protesters did not give permission to be taped. They don't seem to understand that if you do something in a public space, you have no right to expect privacy.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Think of the question in the OP from another point of view.
Unless you happen to be "in charge" of other peoples attitudes and opinions tolerance has very little to do with the other person and a lot to do with you. If you feel like you cannot be OK unless so and so bucks up and (name your choice of how they should be), you can never fully be OK.
Is that helpless and candy ass serenity shit? I'll concede that point as soon as you tell me how being unhappy with someone is going to change that person.
How do you change people? You live the way you think best (hopefully with guidance from your higher power.) You let other people see how much that does for you and maybe they will want some of the same.
Do you tolerate violence, or abuse of yourself or others? No. And you react in a way that does not lower you to their level.
Does that seem inadequate or helpless? It sure does as long as you harbor that subliminal feeling that you are in charge instead of God.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Are 'safe spaces' a justification for shutting out ideas?
What is being asked for is far from a "safe space" - it's censorship.
From a detailed article in The Atlantic
quote:
: ...safe-baiting: using intimidation or initiating physical aggression to violate someone’s rights, then acting like your target is making you unsafe.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Ah, yes, the rise of the cry-bully.
quote:
When speech comes to be seen as a form of violence, vindictive protectiveness can justify a hostile, and perhaps even violent, response.
I still believe the solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Or violence.
Whether or not more speech counts as being intolerant of intolerance I couldn't say, as I'm not sure I'm getting all of the assumptions made on this thread.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Do we keep pushing culture in the direction where the intolerant get pushed more and more to the outside?
What if they then cry that we are being intolerant of them?
Hi Boogie,
The problem is when "tolerance" becomes a label that "our side" gives itself. And so "our side" proclaims that We are right to be intolerant of Them and Their views, but They have a duty to be tolerant of Us and Ours. It's a form of the perennial temptation ...
Seems to me that tolerance isn't a well-defined worldview or position that can then be defended intolerantly. Tolerance is about how we deal with those who disagree with us and do the things we don't like.
For example, you've said elsewhere that you hold views that might perhaps be described as "egalitarian". Nothing wrong with that. But you have the choice of holding them tolerantly or intolerantly. You don't get to wear the label "tolerant" out of hand, as something implicit in egalitarianism. You have to earn it by the manner of your interaction with those with whom you disagree.
I think you're right that there's a real issue here about what a tolerant society looks like.
I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean no-one holding any values at all or expressing any opinions at all. And it doesn't mean one group deciding what's politically correct and everyone else feeling compelled to fall into line with that.
Seems to me that a tolerant society can only be one where a plurality of views - traditional, radical, eccentric, wacky, whatever - can be held and expressed.
Which means no-one's actions are "safe" from being criticised or unesteemed by others.
So perhaps such a society needs a clearer idea than we seem to have at the moment as to where such criticism or expressed lack-of-esteem tips over into a trespass against others ? Clearer boundaries ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The line for tolerance really isn't that difficult to discern. Does your view and its expression cause others harm?
All the rest is special pleading for intolerance.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The line for tolerance really isn't that difficult to discern. Does your view and its expression cause others harm?
What's the definition of harm? Who decides if your view and its expression causes harm?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
... the talk was held in a public university space. ... The University spokespeople said it had to be taken down because the protesters did not give permission to be taped. They don't seem to understand that if you do something in a public space, you have no right to expect privacy.
This is something that seems counterintuitive to many people, but there's no such thing as "public university space" because all universities are private property. A university may be publically funded and accessible, but it is still legally private property, just like the premises of any other corporate entity.
The smart thing to do is to post signs at the venue which say, "By remaining in this area, you acknowledge that you will be recorded / photographed ... you grant permission to use your image without compensation ... yada yada yada." Their media / communications people would have known that, but they're not always the ones organizing an event.
Even if someone is in a truly public place, like the sidewalk, legally, no one has the right to record and publish their image without permission (with exceptions for crowd scenes, public interest, etc.) The ubiquitous combo of cell phones and social media seems to have made people forget this.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
