Is tolerance intolerant?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Sure, and lots of Muslims recognize it so I don't see what your point is.  Lots of Muslims come from Africa and there are even American Muslims that migrate to Africa.   Approximately 1/3 of the world's Muslim population is on the continent of Africa.  Really though, anybody can choose to celebrate it.

My point is it's based in nationalism (specifically African-American nationalism; I legitimately can't find information about people in Africa actually celebrating it) instead of religion, therefore, not a Muslim holiday.

Cool. Nobody asserted that it was specifically a Muslim holiday.  Here is a video of Muslims recognizing Kwanzaa.

[tackattack]

[Jackie]

[tackattack]

ok so similar to justice and blind justice. I'm down for informed trust instead of blind trust.
So instead of being PC or general civic principles of tolerance we would have time better spent shooting for a respectful(trust and understanding) and compassionate civic goals?

Where should it be limited? In the laws? To the person? In creative endeavors (music, art, speech) or should it always be a cornerstone of society?

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd probably have to live in the shadow of confederate monuments to understand the harm they do.  It's shit like that, that makes us distrust each other.  You can be fairly confident that a Statue Enthusiast™ won't have your back unless you're the right shade of lipstick.

Is trust necessary for understanding or compassion? Is that something we should strive for. Personally I have to trust some people, but I don't have to trust Jeffry Dahmer to understand his motives. I might need trust to show compassion. idk. That brings up intrinsic worth of compassion and value as a person/society into the equation.

It's necessary for the sort of national coming together Benny was commenting on, yeah.  For notions of the most fundamental unity and cohesion and equality to be more than transparent lip service.  Not everyone around a fire singing kumbaya, just the basic expectations.  Just as understanding why and how the things people bitch about as PC is necessary.

I've never known any complaint about the latter to be more than the prelude to some notion that a person feels slighted by not being able to slight another.  Is it really any wonder that we're in the state we're in? The irony of a thread ostensibly about the intolerance of tolerance swirling that particular drain is delicious. No one is suffering from any lack of understanding on that count, and no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them more so.

[Jackie]

ok so similar to justice and blind justice. I'm down for informed trust instead of blind trust.
So instead of being PC or general civic principles of tolerance we would have time better spent shooting for a respectful(trust and understanding) and compassionate civic goals?

Where should it be limited? In the laws? To the person? In creative endeavors (music, art, speech) or should it always be a cornerstone of society?

"Respect" is a word I never use. Far more often than not, it is used, BY ALL LABELS, to mean "Don't bruise my ego" and or "Know your place."

I think Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man and he once said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." But does that mean I have to "respect" that even given that, at the time of the signing of the Constitution slavery was still acceptable?

I use the word "value" instead. I will always value human rights and non violence, but I do not have to "respect" bad claims. 

I will "value" evidence when it is provided.

[tackattack]

[The Grand Nudger]

I like your choice of words. So instead of striving for tolerance we should strive for finding fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals. I value your opinion but I respectfully disagree with your last point that no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them less butt hurt. The irony is that in this thread of intolerance of tolerance that by seeking understanding and showing compassion and valuing the fundamental basics that make each giver of an opinion human, it''s become quite a tolerant discussion about intolerance

You're misunderstanding me.  Yes, we should strive for tolerance, but not in the case of the intolerant.  They can eat a bag of dicks, lol.  Nothing can destroy a tolerant society quite like becoming tolerant of the intolerant.

See: the current and accelerating decline of liberal governance at the hands of racist trolls.....worldwide. No amount of including those trolls in a civic coalition is prudent. If they want in, then they need to buy in, not bitch about being excluded and called for what they are. It doesn't matter that we might both agree that a new highway is a good idea, for example...particularly since you just -know- they're gonna name it The Nathan Bedford Forrest Superhighway. No darkies in the left lane, violations monitored by aircraft. It'll be a toll road, ofc...and generate immense profits for the local highway patrol, as well as prime opportunity for theft by cops that simply are the robbers. The Statue Enthusiasts of the world will see this, nod their heads, and call it good (as they already do). Gotta keep our roads clean and our nation safe, right?

[Jackie]

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I like your choice of words. So instead of striving for tolerance we should strive for finding fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals. I value your opinion but I respectfully disagree with your last point that no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them less butt hurt. The irony is that in this thread of intolerance of tolerance that by seeking understanding and showing compassion and valuing the fundamental basics that make each giver of an opinion human, it''s become quite a tolerant discussion about intolerance


OK so respect isn't the right word. Value is fine. You can value someone's worth as  another living breathing organism with an opinion and perspective different than yours. You can trust, like you have here, that there are no ulterior motives, that it's just a discussion on tolerance/intolerance. I consider respect = value+ trust. As you define respect differently we can just use the base terms.

So would you agree with: it would be better than just tolerating someone to find basic value and trust to promote fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals?

Christians have the saying, " God grant me the ability to change the things I can, and accept the things I cannot, and the ability to know the difference."

I agree with that, but not the superstition or mythology.

The skeptic would say something like, " Shit happens, do what you can to minimize harm to others and accept our diversity."

Humans are not a separate species. We are all capable of compassion and non violence. But that does not mean we have to accept all bad claims.

Interesting.  Kinda sounds like the Wiccan Rede.

I don't adhere to any crazy religious or atheistic hocus pocus, but I think there are certain concepts we can all agree on.