Is tolerance intolerant?

[Brian37]

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.

UGGGGG, If you dig deep enough into multiple religions, it does not matter, humans are all arguing the same thing.

"I am good. I am moral"

Wiccan, Muslim, Rasta, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian....... It does not change the fact that every nation on the face of the planet has both hospitals and prisons. 

One book that should be far more widely read as far as skeptics is "The New Atheism" by Victor Stinger. In later chapters he compares multiple religions worldwide showing the idea of "goodness" is claimed by all. And that is not a false statement. Every religion in the world has apologists who point to writings and holy people as proof that that sect is the seat of morality of our species.

I'd agree that there are good people in every religion. I simply disagree that it is the religion making humans good, but our species evolution that makes us capable of such.

There is no magic to our species. If one is to admit there are good in every bunch, and nuts in every bunch, then that says to me our behaviors are not in mythology but in nature, both good and bad.

[tackattack]

OK so to both your points We all agree you can value the individual but not the claim. I'm familiar with the phrase Brian and agree with it as well.

Gae, I whole-heartedly disagree that we should strive for tolerance, but not in the case of the intolerant without a serious redefinition of the word. If tolerance is accepting ipso facto, then I don't think I agree with that at all. I'm not saying to tolerate the intolerant.

I saying we need to find value where it is and where it's not. Increasing value is a good goal for a society. Having a plurality of opinions and options can be good for a society when tempered with a value proposition.Is a secular society goal more valuable than a theistic society, idk. Is a slavery accepting society more valuable than a free society, I don't think so. That doesn't mean that there's no value in the view, just that it's generally less valuable to support slavery.

Would you agree finding basic value and trust to promote fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals is a better step than ipso facto tolerance of all but the intolerant?


Added for catching up to posts: Actually Brian, Christianity doesn't ascribe to "I am good. I am moral" quite the opposite

[The Grand Nudger]

OK so to both your points We all agree you can value the individual but not the claim. I'm familiar with the phrase Brian and agree with it as well.

Gae, I whole-heartedly disagree that we should strive for tolerance, but not in the case of the intolerant without a serious redefinition of the word. If tolerance is accepting ipso facto, then I don't think I agree with that at all. I'm not saying to tolerate the intolerant.

I saying we need to find value where it is and where it's not. Increasing value is a good goal for a society. Having a plurality of opinions and options can be good for a society when tempered with a value proposition.Is a secular society goal more valuable than a theistic society, idk. Is a slavery accepting society more valuable than a free society, I don't think so. That doesn't mean that there's no value in the view, just that it's generally less valuable to support slavery.

Would you agree finding basic value and trust to promote fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals is a better step than ipso facto tolerance of all but the intolerant?

Clearly not, in that I indicated my opinion that a sympathizers coalition with the intolerant was broadly and globally destructive, not constructive.  Where you got the idea that tolerance is some sort of ipso facto aarrangement where we have to welcome the nazis and neoconfederates into the fold, you know..for civic goals (whatever those are) is beyond me. That's not tolerance...lol...that's the alt rights redefinition of tolerance as a cudgel to levy charges of hypocrisy.

If they want in, then they can buy in.  It all begins there, and the onus is on them.

I don't agree with social conservatism, and I don't think that fiscal conservatism has as much merit as it might seem at first....but they're americans. They're already in the fold, all in, and my disagreement with them doesn't send me into a tizzy demanding that border patrol and ice check them all for their papers. The other assholes...well...can you spot a minor difference of mo, there? Those fuckers...for all their flag waving and blood and soil and america first nonsense....are simply unamerican. There's no way around it. They simply do not believe in the fundamentals of american civic duty or ideals, instead..... they flatly oppose them. There can be no accommodation or tolerance there. People that fall into that subset are unfit to leverage authority, and can't be allowed to steer even the most minor of policy decisions. They'll still benefit, ofc, suckling at the tit they would disenfranchise or cage or deport - and even that much may be too good for them, lol.

[tackattack]

It's only destructive if they're intolerance is given any value. Then we should define tolerance as to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. per the dictionary. If you are valuing something and rejecting it's contribution or value to a problem then that is interference, hence my ipso facto definition. If you don't like it, you're free to tell me what you think tolerance is.

I agree that everyone in society should have a buy in. I'll have to look up social conservatism for the details, but my work beckons me, more tonight.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that tolerance is the usual thing - the willingness to accept the existence of opinions and behaviors we don't agree with.  The allowable variation between standards.

What you're discussing, is carte blanche, not tolerance.  That we can tolerate the sheer existence of assholes doesn't give them freedom to operate on their impulses or require that we allow those impulses into the decision making process...nor does it mean that we can't routinely point out that and exactly why they're assholes.

Tolerance - Stop being an asshole.

Alt Right Tolerance™ - stop calling me an asshole for being an asshole..waaaaaaah, what about tolerance!?!

Tolerance - Then stop being an asshole.

It's super simple.

Social conservatism is the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions. This can include moral issues.

One can understand why a person who sees fragility in society would be slow to change what works. They can be wrong about what works, who it works for, and why it works - we can have that disagreement, that's the progressive disagreement in a nutshell. Juxtapose this against the politics of spite and resentment that defines the alt right and their current crusade against PC and tolerance, as well as our established institutions. It's not so much a disagreement to be had with the latter, as it is the necessity to completely excoriate their ideology - to deplatform and delegitimize it. Pushing it back to the fringe where it's incapable of causing the harm it has in the past and is currently doing. It will still exist, it will still be around, but it can't be given even the slightest amount of leverage. There is no conversation to be had over whether or not that ideology works, we already knew that it didn't but we're slow to learn...I guess.

So here we are, stuck in the dumbest timeline. More and more space purchased for that spite and resentment..and mostly because it seems to some establishment types that they might be a good ally in the struggle against their opposition establishment wing - and this is an entirely bipartisan arrangement, with the left granting credence and using them as the case example of the new right (which is becoming more and more true by the day, sadly) and the right handing them authority while trying to swing them around like an axe against the left to their own detriment, more often than not. The enemy of my enemy is my friend nonsense. If there were -anything- that the left and right could band together, as a civic goal..towards...it would be re-consigning that ideology to the dust bin of defeated enemies. Everyone has skin in that game. But no.....lol...nooooo.

Dumbest........timeline.

[Rev. Rye]

Rev and Max, please stop derailing the thread and take your kwanza celebration to a new thread or PM. Not that I'm being intolerant of it, just that there is a unity of topic here and that's off the rails.

Fair enough. We shall resume this topic on another thread... preferably when we have someone else on board with a proper working knowledge of Kwanzaa. It’s interesting trying to learn about it, but I reckon a discussion may benefit from an expert.

---

Just as long as it’s not Huggy Bear. Then again he may be in the majority that don’t celebrate it.

---

[bennyboy]

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 think PC is a very good example for a case study. I think almost all of us agree that black people, gay people, and any other people who aren't in some way actively harming others should be shown dignity and fairness. As you know, I dislike the current breed of PC, but even I would rather have the noisiest, most annoying squawking PC extremist than to have a total lack of dissent-- because that way leads immediately to dictatorship.

On the other hand, though, there also needs to be some understanding that ideas take time to change, and that if everyone under the sun is screaming for their particular issue to be the most important issue in society on a given day, the "tolerance airspace" so to speak gets pretty dense. Everything we talked about before in the race-issues thread is important. Then there are environmental issues that are deeply important to some, humanitarian issues (including vegetarianism) that are deeply important to others, and even philosophical differences about education, the economy, how school dollars should be spent. Almost everyone I know has some kind of trigger issue-- and some triggers feed naturally off each other.

(Actually, I'm a very strong vegetarian for both philosophical and pragmatic reasons, and find the meat industry deeply disturbing. I could definitely spend my days screaming "murderer" at every McDonald's I passed or country boy with a hunting story, or throwing buckets of paint on every rich bitch with a fur coat. But I don't, because no matter how I feel, I know that these kinds of issues might get addressed over decades or centuries-- not in a sign or a forum post)

If everyone has to slam on the brakes when their personal issue of importance come up, then all the moral rightness in the world doesn't make up for the fact that we will have a society where nobody can walk more than one step in any direction without stepping on eggshells.

---

Okay, so back to the Christmas stuff.

It's my guess that either Christianity and other religions will slowly disappear, or they will slowly adapt so that they fit into modern society better. The current pope gives a pretty good example of a religion that's decided it needs to try and do that.

But in the meantime, verbally berating every Christian who comes a-caroling, or getting really upset about teachers singing Christmas songs, is very unlikely to produce anything more than unnecessary friction.

To me, it has to be a process of patient negotiation. Instead of flipping the fuck out, you have to visit the school, explain that you are uncomfortable with Christmas traditions being imposed on students. Ask the principal to think about it a bit, then go back in a week and see if he's come up with some ideas. Then, if reasonable efforts to negotiate fail, you can pull out the picket signs or obtain a lawyer to help you get heard.

[Amarok]

So benny you lose this argument again

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

UGGGGG, If you dig deep enough into multiple religions, it does not matter, humans are all arguing the same thing.

"I am good. I am moral"

Wiccan, Muslim, Rasta, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian....... It does not change the fact that every nation on the face of the planet has both hospitals and prisons. 

One book that should be far more widely read as far as skeptics is "The New Atheism" by Victor Stinger. In later chapters he compares multiple religions worldwide showing the idea of "goodness" is claimed by all. And that is not a false statement. Every religion in the world has apologists who point to writings and holy people as proof that that sect is the seat of morality of our species.

I'd agree that there are good people in every religion. I simply disagree that it is the religion making humans good, but our species evolution that makes us capable of such.

There is no magic to our species. If one is to admit there are good in every bunch, and nuts in every bunch, then that says to me our behaviors are not in mythology but in nature, both good and bad.

I don't think it's good to assume one thing.  Religion can be beneficial or detrimental.  It just depends on the context someone interprets it.  More times than not, someone on the outside is complaining because someone practiced out of context.  Same with atheism.  Some people can believe it helps them focus on the natural world and what they feel is real.  Then you can get people that go over the top and annoy everybody that doesn't think like them. Regardless, it's better to find common ground and apply compassion for one another.  Not this "my belief can beat up your belief" arguing that goes round-n-round.

[onlinebiker]

Years back - it was common for machinists such as myself to take the ISO course on geometric tolerancing - whenever work got slow...

We made a bit of a game of it after the third or fourth time taking the same course - and we decided that we needed to come up with a " mission statement" about the course - to explain to our spouses, friends and family, what the course was all about.


We came up with -

If you want more tolerance - you need a bigger hole.

.....


I realize now we were on to something ----


As these days - a goodly number of people I meet who yammer on about tolerance - seem to be some rather large holes,.........





(betting this joke doesn't get tolerated well...)