Multiracism not Multiculturalism?

[Rev. Rye]

I think this is the point Igno is trying to grasp at:



Here's an old post I made a while ago:

A couple of thoughts I had and wanted opinions on.

Are you really tolerant in your beliefs? Is tolerance something to strive for? Should we strive to be more tolerant as a society? Is it even worth it?

Pluralization ought to be the case and it is beneficial. I don't agree with pluralization extrapolated to relativism though.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/0...51839.html

Even instrumental carols have been banned in some schools. Are people so weak in their beliefs that they can't accommodate someone else's belief?
I've told a muslim I hope your Ramadan goes well. I'd have no problem telling a Wiccan that I hope their Yule festival is well. It doesn't mean I support those beliefs.

I just don't know when "being tolerant" or "politically correct" became so much about what we don't want to see or believe or have, and less about respecting the sacredness of other people's beliefs?

I mean if we're truly an autonomous culture or striving for one, do we really respect the autonomy of the individual?

In 1945, Karl Popper wrote a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies, about the basic contradiction inherent in tolerance, and this is what he ended up concluding:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, 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. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

In practice, I think there is one important limit to where the line should go: To quote the old adage, "“My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.” Admittedly, things have to be judged by several factors (mostly the basis of your concerns and whether or not they're rooted in facts and/or observable reality, and their effects on the world around you) for them to mean anything [especially since the phrase in question seems to have originated in Prohibitionist circles and their definition of where one person's nose begins is kind of nebulous and the effects were/are not all that helpful], but, without taking all that into account, not only tolerance, but ethics in general, just ends up boiling down to the question of "How dare you worry about your selfish desires when you should be worrying about my selfish desires?"

And bear in mind, the reason the cartoonist chose Nazis is not just because of the rise of far-right groups that may or may not have a layer of traditionalism so thin it has to be applied by the static electricity of a squirrel-hair brush to keep them from being obvious Neo-Nazis over the past couple years. Karl Popper published The Open Society and its Enemies in 1945, was Jewish, and had the good fortune to get a position in New Zealand so he could leave Austria in 1937. You can do the math here.

And with the remarks about Islam, well, let me put it simply from what I've noticed in my first 30 years: There are certainly some Muslims whose values are antithetical to the sort of modern values we should be striving for. There are also some Muslims who just want to live in peace and not antagonise people (and of course, some are just dicks and would be the dicks in the exact same way if they were WASPs). And there are also some white people whose values are antithetical to the modern values we should be striving for. And because the values they espouse are usually far less alien to the population at large than the ones those Muslims preach, they're more dangerous because people are actually likely to buy into their bullshit. You can argue Islam is inherently the sort of intolerant ideology that puts it on par with the Nazis, but the problem is that you can argue the exact same thing about Christianity, and odds are, where you live, Christians have far more power, and your local conservative parties (in Australia's case, the National Liberal party) are far more likely to undermine modern values and use Christianity to justify it. If you're not going to put Christianity on that exact level (or even higher), singling out Islam is, to say the least, really fucking dodgy.

[no one]

If humans would just realize, there are only TWO types of people: Cool people, and asshats.

I don't care where you come from, what color your skin is, how much money you have, what sex you are, what sex you are attracted to, if you're an asshat, you're a fucking asshat!

[Fireball]

If humans would just realize, there are only TWO types of people: Cool people, and asshats.

I don't care where you come from, what color your skin is, how much money you have, what sex you are, what sex you are attracted to, if you're an asshat, you're a fucking asshat!

Now, all you light green asshats get up to the front of the bus, and you dark green asshats can get to the back!

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think this is the point Igno is trying to grasp at:



Here's an old post I made a while ago:

In 1945, Karl Popper wrote a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies, about the basic contradiction inherent in tolerance, and this is what he ended up concluding:


In practice, I think there is one important limit to where the line should go: To quote the old adage, "“My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.” Admittedly, things have to be judged by several factors (mostly the basis of your concerns and whether or not they're rooted in facts and/or observable reality, and their effects on the world around you) for them to mean anything [especially since the phrase in question seems to have originated in Prohibitionist circles and their definition of where one person's nose begins is kind of nebulous and the effects were/are not all that helpful], but, without taking all that into account, not only tolerance, but ethics in general, just ends up boiling down to the question of "How dare you worry about your selfish desires when you should be worrying about my selfish desires?"

And bear in mind, the reason the cartoonist chose Nazis is not just because of the rise of far-right groups that may or may not have a layer of traditionalism so thin it has to be applied by the static electricity of a squirrel-hair brush to keep them from being obvious Neo-Nazis over the past couple years. Karl Popper published The Open Society and its Enemies in 1945, was Jewish, and had the good fortune to get a position in New Zealand so he could leave Austria in 1937. You can do the math here.

And with the remarks about Islam, well, let me put it simply from what I've noticed in my first 30 years: There are certainly some Muslims whose values are antithetical to the sort of modern values we should be striving for. There are also some Muslims who just want to live in peace and not antagonise people (and of course, some are just dicks and would be the dicks in the exact same way if they were WASPs). And there are also some white people whose values are antithetical to the modern values we should be striving for. And because the values they espouse are usually far less alien to the population at large than the ones those Muslims preach, they're more dangerous because people are actually likely to buy into their bullshit. You can argue Islam is inherently the sort of intolerant ideology that puts it on par with the Nazis, but the problem is that you can argue the exact same thing about Christianity, and odds are, where you live, Christians have far more power, and your local conservative parties (in Australia's case, the National Liberal party) are far more likely to undermine modern values and use Christianity to justify it. If you're not going to put Christianity on that exact level (or even higher), singling out Islam is, to say the least, really fucking dodgy.

And may i add the Extreme right have done an excellent job recently rebranding themselves and their hateful views to try and palatable to the mainstream . Radical Islam has not .

[no one]

Maybe it's the substance....... er,...... sleep deprivation talking, but why should I tolerate the intolerant?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Maybe it's the substance....... er,...... sleep deprivation talking, but why should I tolerate the intolerant?

We shouldn't but be mindful for that logic can be twisted by the hateful 

I generally rebuke the idea of being tolerant . I am for things not merely permissible of other things
I'm Pro LGBT and if their not we are in conflict 
I'm Pro Trans and if their not we are in conflict 
I'm Pro Immigration and if their not we are in conflict 

These are my values and my causes and they are not up for negotiation

[no one]

What I am trying to say is, if you are going to blindly hate, you do not deserve any sort of consideration of your wittwe fewwings.

[ignoramus]

So basically the far left tolerate a little too much and the far right tolerate a little too little.
So basically a natural cyclic self regulating sine wave. I s'pose our views depend on where on the sine wave you grew up on. (amongst many other variables).

I'm on the "there's no such thing as too much bacon" sinewave! lol.

[Little lunch]

You would think that if there is a far left and a far right, then centre right would be far more tolerable than far left.

[The Grand Nudger]

The center right in american parlance would be the democratic party. They would very much like to tolerate the intolerant, especially for votes.