Is tolerance intolerant?

[tackattack]

---

The above describes Racial apathy. I am not unwilling to address forms of racially disparate treatment. It's not that I'm towing some racial majority line,

You are.  I mean, i could go on and on about the pervasive and subtle ability of the status quo to conscript the otherwise unwitting, and I could point out that the objections you're fielding aren;t actually an example of that (they're intentional propaganda) even though your fielding them likely is....but what would the point be?  I'd just be wrong, culture warring you...and that reaction itself....well....lol.

or that I'm subtly hiding my anti-integrationalist feelings behind a socially acceptable indifference. It's a null position.  You are wrong but let me be specific for clarity. I already stated that I can appreciate that people are classifying machines and tend to categorize people based on biases and that includes myself.

Bit of a quandary you're in, then.  

It's not that I object to any programatic solutions to address social wrongs, just the application of discrimination to equalize discrimination. Racial neutrality isn't racist in it's intent or effect. That's the very reason I started this thread.

Affirmative action isn;t discrimination.  A point expounded upon but glossed over.  

Let's see if I can make this clearer. Person A is an Atheist, they hold that there is no proof of God. It's a neutral position. But in action (put on your SJW pants) that becomes railing against religious mechanizations with vitriol. That pushes the pendulum back the other direction. Which galvanizes the other side  to push back. The more intolerance, injustice and emotionalism applied by both sides just keeps the pendulum running. I would like to think that eventually it will rest peacefully in the middle, but that's only when both sides give up feeding the problem with more problems, and isn't realistic.
In this post (http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_...657-16.php) I disagree with the conclusion but agree with his quote of King

...and now we got thoughts about sjws.  Gee, who'd have seen it coming?  The actions of people seeking a greater equality don;t cause the other side to "push back"..they do that out of apathy or antipathy..and the fact that we find ourselves in this situation is an effect of that to begin with, ranging back long before anyone railed against them.  

The problem you're not seeing is that you claim your SJW side is right. My argument is really about the tools used. There are bad people on both sides. Inaction is less overt but bad as well. Simply by starting this discussion I do promote action/discussion/change, in myself and others. It's also about what tools would be better than fighting fire with fire.

The sjw side is right, and bitching about the means used to acheive a greater equality has always been the refuge of those seeking to oppose it. "Here here my good man, ofc we want a greater equality, but you have to go about it the right way. So let's stop all this disruptive ruckus, shall we? You're only making it worse. " 



But yeah...sure..sure...#BOTH SIDES!

---

1. So what if my view matches a majority view, it doesn't make it any more/less valid. I'd like you to address it to point out my biases which I hold very valuable. I won't assume you're wrong if you would like to address it directly. If not continue to blow it off.
2. Affirmative action in practice can unjustly discriminate.
3. The actions of both sides do galvanize sides. Extremism breed extremism and especially in the realm of emotionalism. You don't really believe reactions happen in a vacuum do you? push back happens out of selection bias and antipathy. Apathy is not a cause of anything other than indecision, it is a null position. There is some injustice in inaction inherently so most see inaction as a negative, but it doesn't galvanize simply for being a null position instead of an extreme.
4. If you want to leave out SJws then let's talk about the nuclear race or use atheism as an example. The methods you use to get justice do NOT always justify the means. I'm not seeking refuge from anything, nor have you pointed at anything that would cause cognitive dissonance.

---

I think what's missing from your analysis, tack, is that different sides have legitimate and real interests which may or may not be served by tolerance. If you just pursue tolerance for its own sake, independent of these concerns, then you likely do so in error. In another thread, I asked the question as to whether the polarization in American politics can be reversed, and noted various things contributing to that polarization. This includes the perception that letting the other side win may contribute to very real harms. One simply cannot "give-in" to the other in the face of such. Tolerance is at bottom a mechanism that is used for shaping behavior. Sometimes intolerance may be justified in the service of a greater good. If your position is not unconditionally in favor of tolerance, then I apologize for what is something of a straw man, but I haven't seen a lot of balance in your discussion of tolerance.

Anyway, doing my best to stay out of this, so take it for what it's worth.

---

I'm not saying there aren't real justifications for either side, nor am I saying that affirmative action is only about intlerance. I specifically said you can pursue tolerance and factor in those concerns. I'm just not buying into the emotional value or intolerance as a successful tool. The problem I see with your stance, as stated is that standing for what you believe in isn't giving-in or letting the other side win. Tolerance is a mechanism, as is intolerance, emotionalism and polarization. There are times when intolerance might be justified or even successful, I just don't think it's the best tool to use. If I'm been ignorant or overly biased, please point it out directly as I do strive for a balance.