Tolerance for the intolerant???

Post Reply New Topic

You don't have to recommend anything. But you do have to clarify your position, which I don't have a mother f*****g clue where you're landing, here.

Are you in support of censorship or not?

I'm in support of not getting edgy & in someone's face about the simple idea of not putting up with hate speech.

Define "not putting up with hate speech."

I don't "tolerate the intolerant."

I don't deserve to hear the Nazi, racist crap that comes out of peoples' mouths. I just don't want to hear that s**t. And I'm entitled not to hear that s**t.

I grew up amongst intolerance. I don't want to die amongst intolerance.

Well now, that's the thing about free speech, I don't HAVE to clarify anything.

You raised a point about it being fine for people to make up any old BS they like, because you can always sue them if they say anything demonstrably false and harmful to your reputation. I pointed out that's not necessarily true. That's a valid point that you need to deal with, not me. I can clear off now and leave you to deal with it, much like the theoretical OP who slandered you by making stuff up.

Which brings us neatly onto context and accountability.

In general I am in favour of free speech, but I believe it has its limitations. With fiction maybe anything and everything should be equally valid, but I'm not sure about material that's grotesque and sadistic. Yes for most people it's just entertainment but I do worry about the small minority of people who deeply and genuinely get off on it. The problem with really poisonous ideas is, once you've shared them with the world, there's no way of ever unsharing them again. They're out there looking for a home.

With more mainstream entertainment there's all sorts of issues with false representation. For example Hollywood's obsession with violence as the answer to all problems (and normally with very clean gunshot deaths, too) and prudishness about sex. So we glorify and misrepresent the unusual - gun battles - while simultaneously promoting sex from something that's routine for a lot of people, into some sort of weird, forbidden, holy grail.

At the same time I don't think it would be acceptable to throw a snuff movie into the middle of Saturday morning kid's TV.

Advertising, politics, religion and social / economic commentary are even more complicated. Personally I'd love to see debate based around facts, where all the talking heads have to state their sources and justify what they're saying. But of course that can be very hard if you're going against big money interests who control the mainstream narrative. I'd love to see advertising limited to facts rather than implied "lifestyle" values, too.

There's also the traditional cop-out of blaming a higher power whenever anyone wants to say something bigoted, knowing that the Bible and the existence of God cannot ever be comprehensively proven or disproven as fact. Something outrageous to say? Blame it on Jesus.

With personal media attacks (libel and slander) only facts proven without reasonable doubt should even be considered. There is a trend at the moment to just keep throwing made-up s**t around until some of it sticks, or the credibility of the whole debate is dissolved. That's immensely destructive and a way needs to be found to stop that, without preventing genuine investigative journalism. How do we strike that balance? No idea.

Why can't you just tolerate that everything I say is like a pizza cutter, all edge and no point? - chudchan

Very few people are without bigotry of any kind.

One should look at the entire person when judging whether to associate with a person with bigoted views. There is no simple answer and each situation is different. As with every relationship of any kind, one has to decide if the benefits of the relationship with that person outweigh the harm. If you decide John Doe is a nice person who is good for you despite the bigoted views then you have to decide if or how to confront the person.

The main problem in this example would surely be the people who are violent, not you saying whatever you like. Although I don't think people should have to endure sustained verbal attacks in the name of "free speech". On the other hand, if lots of "normal people" voiced their support for the victim and opposition to the attacker perhaps more talking would be the answer.

For reference, I'm generally quite intollerant of intollerance (maybe more so than I should be).

For me, my approach largely depends on the person I am interacting with and whether or not I think they are actually intolerant or simply ignorant. Is the person willing to listen and engage in conversation, or are they so hell bent on their views being the only one that any effective communication is rendered nonexistent before it begins?

I know my words won't somehow magically change someone's mind, but if I can get them to listen to a different view point, maybe my words can at least sink in a little and ideally some kind of understanding could begin to form. I will listen to people who hold different view points, even when (and sometimes especially when) they are dramatically different from my own, that includes people who, to me, seem intolerant. I don't expect anyone to listen to me if I refuse to hear them out too. Seems shi**y and hypocritical to me to not return the favor I am asking for. But I also refuse to be ignored if I have taken the time to hear someone out. I expect the same consideration in return. Personally, I find being aggressive towards people in general only serves to further the divide between people, and I don't like that. I'd rather use conversation to attempt to build bridges instead of burning them.

If that can happen, awesome, if not, oh well. Like I said, I know you can't just do that with everybody. At some point, if I realize conversation is pointless, I simply walk away. No point in talking if no one is listening... me or the other person.

My observation of today's world is that deviation from the popular orthodoxy on even the smallest issue causes one to being labeled as an extremist.

Well said. I had this coworker who was politically on the left, but she was against same sex marriage due to religious reasons. She has friends who are homosexual and she's a wonderful person, if not a little weird, but she has that one trait I just can't agree with. However, it's not enough of a reason for me to look down on her. If that means I'm intolerant... well honestly, I have bigger problems than being considered intolerant for something like that.

I certainly take it on a "case-by-case" basis.

I have friends who express right-wing sorts of views....but when someone talks about the inferiority of one race below another based upon supposed IQ results, that's where I draw the line

What seems to be lost is a common frame of reference.
Terms get thrown around quite freely without agreement upon definition.
Hyperbolic uses of the word "Nazi" or "white supremacists" when anyone challenges the mainstream narrative.

And hyberbolic use of "socialist," "leftist," "commie," "globalist," even "liberal".....

If someone consistently believes in placing the interests of white people ahead of others that's within the definition of white supremacism, so why wouldn't the label be applicable?

It isn't like someone only counts once they're a card carrying Klanman.

Would you call those who place the interests of say, black people ahead of other within the definition of "Black Supremacism"? NAACP and Black Panthers fit the bill. Are these racists organizations?
I am not advocating for racism (white,black or otherwise) and definitely not violence. I think there needs to be some fairness in how we define things.