Tolerance.

Remove all ads!

The government will enforce tolerance upon him but it will not make him tolerant , in fact it will make him more intolerant

 

Neither am I a big fan of majority opinion. The majority could even be in favour of gay marriage and what then?

 

I think the whole frame is wrong.

"Tolerance" is not something that can be legislated or forced because -- as Incarnate pointed out -- it is a state of mind.

Instead, government should continue to make sure that actions are acceptable and leave thoughts alone. The gay basher should be in jail because of the bashing, not because he chose a homosexual to bash. The stereotypical Southern (US) lyncher should be in jail for lynching, not because he lynched a black person.

"Tolerance" is a canard people often use -- as Chevalier and Svyatoslav pointed out early on -- to try to get people not to pass value judgements.

In my opinion, this is a very dangerous thing, as we must make value judgements or risk being literally destroyed. You have to judge the criminal, the terrorist, and the enemy solder as wrong.

 

No. The US does not torture and kill it's own citzens, because they are political dissents. They do kill people in Wars, but dont Scandinavians have troops in Iraq as well? Because if that makes the US a criminal state, so are the Scandinavian countries.
By the way, I think we agree on the individuals who support these regimes, since you did not comment on that? It is not like it is a matter of agreeing though, as an international law is objective enough to disregard "opinions".

Having a Political Science major, I wont lose time discussing such basic concepts with a high schooler who thinks his high grades mean anything in the real world - or the academical world, which is like the opposite reality from high school.
However, I will quote the post from someone else from the locked thread. I am sure you will find someone's else commentary much more unbiased than mine anyway.

How do you define "oppressive"? You know, leftist describe the US as an "oppressive" state. It can mean a hell lot of things. If you mean a goverment such as the US should be overthrowed, then my answer is no.
This was not my point anyway. You said anarchism is not totalitarist; I said I agree, but I mentioned lots of ideologues of anarchism support totalitarian ways to attain anarchism - force, violence, overthrowing, murder, etc. This is a contradiction.

That is where we disagree. I dont think Franco was a Fascist.

That is exactly the thing I have been saying since the beggining. Some people are only libertarians and democratics when they see they should be. When they support a totalitarian action by the goverment, it is all fine.
But who will be the people who decide what the majority wants is not the best? Because I would not be glad if it was up to you, as I am sure you would not be content if it was up to me.
This is exactly what the communists did in the URSS, they disregarded people's wishes because they knew what was best for them, and what was right...
Werent you bragging about Democracy a while ago?
---------------------------------------------------

I agree with the lynching example, but can not comply with the bashing part. If you jail someone for "bashing", you are being intolerant to his ideas.
---------------------------------------------------

This quote shows how subtle the intolerance and prejudice of some people is.
Why do you have to associate being against racial intermingling with being a "Joe Six-Pack-of-Pabst"? You know, because I could say just as much women who are pro it are just a bunch of brainwashed Sally-soccermoms.

 

As has been said many times before, majority opinion (or the lack thereof) is not an automatic claim to entitlement or evidence of being correct. Of course, there is never going to be agreement between some groups on some issues; an opinion is neither right nor wrong in and of itself, although a belief can demonstrably be wrong. In the absence of a clear, undeniable revelation from the divine (call it God, call it what you will), we have to sort things out and make it workable for ourselves. No-one has an entirely value-neutral position; it is quite impossible to be a member of society and to be utterly value-less.

This is why "tolerance" is so important as a concept. Like many concepts (particularly worthy ones), it has been perverted and twisted by some groups, either for personal or political gain, or sometimes as a consequence of ongoing radicalisation in the face of irrelevance. As has already been stated, the irony is that those who preach "tolerance" frequently do not embody it; they're the televangelist-equivalents of that secular ideology.

"Tolerance" should not be a license to claim immunity (anyone remember NAMBLA on South Park?), and is one of the reasons why I am intolerant of cultural relativism as a defence to what would otherwise be criminal conduct. Anyone who's familiar with the debates about female circumcision will know what I mean (at least, with respect to the more invasive and dangerous acts).

That said, and as Rutkowski has rightly pointed out, what the majority wants at a point in time is not always correct. The goal of "tolerance activists" should be to promote awareness of injustice and intolerance, rather than to preach their gospel and damn the heretics. Through such activity, such matters are raised in public awareness (if the public body is paying attention) to the point where considered debate and action is possible.

Within any society, there will be dominant social mores and these must be viewed as such, irrespective of one's agreement with them. If you don't agree, either you tolerate it, you leave, or you attempt to effect change. Those in the dominant category are the ones who need to be the most self-aware, as their tolerance or lack thereof will determine a great deal for those outside their group.

At least, that's how I think it's supposed to work, and could work, if people weren't being sidetracked all the time by various elements. Habermas says it much more precisely than I do.

As a largely-unrelated aside...

I'm pretty sure St James was referring to people who physically assault gay people because they're gay, rather than who verbally "bash" gays. The fine line comes into view when verbal incitement leads to people physically bashing others.

 

I worded it that way for two reasons. The first is that I often try to be funny...and fail. The second is that I worked construction for a couple years. And I worked in a steel mill for about half a year.

There is a definite correlation between racism and alcoholism. I am not saying all alcoholics are racist (hell, I am a borderline alcy), but the guys who would say "ni**er this..." and "sp*c that..." were the same ones downing a case of beer each day.

And what are your opinions on racial intermingling?

 

I agree with that statement. When the Federal government first tried to impose tolerance on the Southern society with the inequality and their treatment of blacks, including desegregation, they met even greater resistance. It actually took societal pressure, along with civil rights legislation, to end segretion and craft a more tolerant society in the South. This is really the point, and that education goes far in creating tolerance regarding differences in society.

Again, it's the same with religion. In Protestant America, there is still some resentment towards Catholics. When John Kennedy became the first Catholic president, my impression is that the intolerance towards Catholics seemed to lessen, but I'm not sure here. Nevertheless, there still has not been another Catholic president since. So as far as religious tolerance goes, it's still a mixed bag here. It is certainly not as bad as the intolernace between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, but despite America's claims of religious tolerance, we may still have a ways to go. Regarding Muslims, this is something new, and it is not entrenched in American socitey as deeply as the religious differences that first shaped regional differences in settling America.

Speaking to the larger point, tolerance is learned and cannot be forced on an individual, especially by the government alone. It took a full-blown civil war to end slavery. And even at the end of that road the forces of intolernace continued (KKK and others) to divide society. America has become a more tolerant society and all its sectional regions, because there are now so many different types of individuals living here, and that it is now very difficult for those who wish to isolate themselves - and those who wish to stick with their own groups (whether religious or otherwise) from those who are different.

Gays continue to face an up-hill battle. Mostly because there are not really that many. They can be ignored as a block of voters because they are marginal in numbers. As groups grow in voting strength, politicains tend to take notice. But again it takes more than government action to promote true tolerance towards those who are different in society, as has been pointed out. But of course, that makes them likely to try and limit the passage of legislation that promotes intolerance.

Many pick-and-choose their preferences towards tolerance: Some may favor and possess relgious tolerance, but not tolerance towards sexual preferences; others may feel quite the opposite, for some may see religious dogma as a greater "heresy" than sexual preference. While others may see sexual preference as a greater sin, than say, adultery. Some see a certain hierarchy in all things, even sin (but that can be relgious dogma).

Regarding politics - Like religion there is a certain dogma. This may or may not be a bad thing. For some of us, the founding documents and the ideals of the orginal Founders of the nation give us the perspective we need: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, even James Otis' courtroom address regarding Writs-of-Assistance, are all valuable touchstones in formulating coherent political roadmaps that remain constant despite changing party politics.

Some of us may be intolerant of notions of inequality. Why? Pick up a copy of the Declaration of Independence. It's matter of founding principles, which are moral imperatives. Some may insert the term dogma here, but nevertheless, "equality" is a founding princple, and as such something upon which Americans should be in agreement. So yes, you can be "intolertant," and be still be tolerant at the same time. Here's the thing:

It depends upon which side of the principle you find yourself on. If some say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident," then perhaps some of us really mean just that.

No, some on the left don't. Some on the left are saying that particular "American regimes" are oppressive. Remember, those in the South, during the Civil War, (not that they were on the left) regarded Lincoln and his admistration as "oppressive." Hence, the reason some of them declared a rebellion and succession.

[ September 28, 2005, 06:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

But with Religion, the more tolerance of Sin that is allowed, the more Religion is eroded. But yet, when we try to stand our ground against such erosion, we are labeled intolerant. The irony is that by labeling us intolerant, we may look back and say "Hi, I'm Kettle, you must be Pot!..."

Actually, you are right. I remember from an anthropology course in college that when affirmative action went into place, the KKK preyed upon those whites that were displaced by blacks out of places that the whites should have been allowed to keep under normal circumstances.

The downside is that when you take morality out of society you get an amoral society. Anything that discourages morality therefore is a threat to morality.

And those that are complacent will not recognize the society that comes forth at the end of the change. Too few anymore are willing to stand and defend traditional mores, and as a result, those mores are threatened.

 

@LNT: What if alcohol just makes people say what they really think instead of "wrapping it in cotton", as we say in Poland? There's nothing like alcohol to elicit bad ethnic names from someone who already uses them in his mind.

@Svyatoslav: I don't want to launch an attack on the States in this thread and I do respect that country, but your faith in lack of opression against citizens is quite optimistic, to say the least. Perhaps there's no torture but police and prison abuse is far from non-existent. You can do a search for topics started by me (chevalier) in the Alleys to find more than you can chew on one night and surely some disturbing examples. Not like it doesn't happen in other countries, but the the US are not a shining example of not doing that.

@NonSequitur: We seem to be in agreement as regards hiding behind tolerance to escape the consequences of criminal conduct. I would like to add that, IMHO, minorities are as capable of racism/intolerance/blaaah crimes as the majority is. Racial quotas are racism, gender quotas are gender discrimination, period.

I can sort of understand the "pride" notions. After you feel thwarted and opressed for a long enough time, when you get a slight hint that things could be better if you fought, you just want to throw it in their face and say you are what you are and proud of it. Okay. It's just we're civilised and doing what we just want to do is not always the best way. Still, it's only a natural reflex that soon the majority may start feeling proud of its distinct heritage in the face of all the privileged minorities.

@Chandos: I am beginning more and more to believe that Catholics in the States are sometimes asking for it. I for one, have a trouble putting up with their ideas.

[ September 28, 2005, 09:10: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

True, active citizenship is an essential element in a society which is not a slave to trends but which can grow and develop through becoming aware of additional values and meanings. That something is traditional does not necessarily mean that it is always valid; however, no social more will/should be accepted in and of itself without a consideration of what it entails. In the end, I'd say we're currently stuck with a society that is more apathetic and cynical than active and questioning.

Then again, that may be because there's only so many hours in the day, and everybody has to sleep, pay the bills and put food on the table sometime. Someone else can worry about society.

@ Chev/LNT: In my experience, you're dead-on. Alcohol doesn't make you a different person, it makes you the person you would be if there was no "Hang On A Second!" part of your brain. To be frank, I know a few people who are like that most of the time... and who are hilariously honest when tanked.

 

Tolerance for me as a German has a special meaning that has grown from two major events in German history. That is (a) the thirty year war and (b) WW-II.

It was looking back on the thirty-year-war that Friederich II of Prussia said "jeder soll nach seiner Fasson glücklich werden" - that everyone should be happy, no matter what religion he adhered to (which was, of course, referring to the choice between protestantism and catholicism - the reason for the big carnage in the 30 year war that just ended).

And the call for tolerance in reference to WW-II obviously relates to the discrimination and brutal murder of jews, gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped people and people of different 'race' in the Third Reich.

That, of course has in response led to a sort of anticipatory obedience in the sense that many Germans try to be especially nice in order to pre-empt nazi accusations. Considering the british habits of reviving the ugly huns for headlines on about every german-british football match, or stupid little princes trying to be funny when they're drunk, that isn't even far fetched.

Even though this pre-emptive and at times overly demonstrative tolerance may at times go beyond absurdity, and is probably even dishonest with some people, it is in it's core a good thing - even though it seriously slows down and inhibits discussions about issues with immigration for instance. It's one of the scars of history we Germans carry around with us.

Tolerance doesn't equal holding egalitarian views after which basically sais that, as everything is subjective, everything is equally true - mind, that point has undeniable merit as an analytical and explanatory apporach in scholarship - but it's much less suited as a solution for real life. Over-tolerance can be self defeating, but we'll get to that later.

That article you posted on p.1 muses

No, that is not abusive, but the essential insight of what tolerance is about. 'These people' are absolutely right.

In the thirty year war the 'forcing views upon others' had a quite tangible meaning, as described in this jolly little rhyme 'Willst Du nicht mein Bruder sein, so schlag' ich Dir den Schädel ein' (become my brother in faith, or I'll bash in your skull) Friederich II's insight that it isn't really important for the greater good wether one is catholic or protestant as long as he is christian and obeys the law was a minor revolution at that time, and marked a significant progress. He recognised that that state, how imperfect however from purist's point of view, was very much preferrable to slaughtering one another for the sake of 'purity', and I can't but agree.

That you basically seem to embrace that authors view of forcing views on others as legitimate is tell tale.

In modern democracies people should attempt to persuade others to their views by persuasion, not by force. And when forcing views on others happens, then by majority rule, and that is because this forcing views on others inherently holds the root for conflict if one party feels treated unfair. That's why this process has been 'tamed' through procedural rules. One of the unspoken procedural rules is tolerance. (EDIT: I seriously needed to edit that part)

Without tolerance there cannot be peaceful co-existence and peace in a society.

Tolerance is basically a cost-benefit calculation, and a means to an end: social peace - is it worth having the trouble or is social peace preferable? The way people do the cost benefit calulation might be objectionable, but that doesn't negate the neccesity or in any way discredits the concept of tolerance.

Radicals or purists in faith can threaten this peace, and that's why tolerance must have limits and means to defend itself, even if that seems self-contradictory, as it employs intolerance to save tolerance (btw, it isn't self contradictory, just read Hegel).

Maybe you should first of all get your terminology straight, Svyatoslav. What you're complaining about are indifference and egalitarian views and from your point of view wrong cost-benefit calculations.

[ September 28, 2005, 13:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Erm, just to point out that outvoted doesn't equal persuaded. That sounds like another Imperial German thing, cuius regio eius religio (Peace of Augsburg, 1555).

 

No, but they torture citizens of other nations, so is that allowed?
(And this is only if we don't count the general beatings in American prisons by the warden's goons that are quite popular, now I mean real torture such as the Guantanamo Bay technique.)

Denmark have, but not Sweden, Norway, or Finland.

Didn't comment on it, because I didn't want to go off-topic. But I can say this; You seems to be a supporter of Franco's rule, and Franco had an illegal government. Work out the results.

Wait, isn't international law part of the NWO? I thought you were against the NWO.

What does Syndicalism have in common with Socialism? That the people rule(But through unions instead of a government) and that it's democratic.(But then, so is Anarchism, so it goes both ways)
However, it doesn't promote a huge union that included all workers. In fact, more unions are better than a few. It's also extremely anti-state, and members of the Swedish SAC, myself included, have been registered by SÄPO, the Swedish mix of Secret Service, CIA, FBI, DEA, and all those other federal organizations.

For the sake of argument, I am not going to call USA oppresive here, even though it is compared to others, but then, it isn't compared to even more.
Oppressive is when you restrict rights for certain groups of citizens, in my opinion. It's a lot more too, but that is one of the major ways to recognize an oppressive rule.

Except, if people got education, it wouldn't be needed. Ignorance breeds intolerance. People thought that the blacks where inferior to the whites, and that was to a faulty education. People think that homosexuality is a dicease, and that is because that is what they have been taught, even though it have been proven wrong over and over.
I do not promote brainwashing, I promote teaching the truth, not things people want to have implented because it helps their agenda.

Answered in above paragraph.

Hope that explains my stance. Actually, I can even shorten it down to three words, in case anyone doesn't want to bother with my rambling above;
Ignorance Breeds Intolerance.

 

Read carefully chev, did I really write that?

And eius regio, cuius religio was not an Imperial German but a Holy German Empire thing. Mind I was talking about the thirty year war, that took place well after the peace of Augsburg. Eius regio, cuius religiowas the approach of the other German realms after the thirty year war. As I wrote, Friederich II's concept of tolerance was a minor revolution then.

 

Yes, you did.

"Forcing" views by persuasion by means of reaching consensus... okay, although persuasion and consensus are mutually redundant. Then you have persuasion by majority vote. That only works if the outvoted folks are going to submit to the majority. For all I know about you German folks, that's quite a real possibility over there, but you won't see any of that here in Poland (we had elections two days ago, you surely are soon going to hear some funny stuff from the Eastern side).

Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, if we are to bicker over semantics.

 

Well, I presume that "In modern democracies people should attempt to persuade others to their views by persuasion, not by force. And when forcing views on others happens, then by majority rule, and that is because this forcing views on others inherently holds the root for conflict if one party feels treated unfair ..." would have been better indeed I'll take the freedom to edit that out.

... not semantics, but historical epochs. You're sure you haven't been disoriented?

 

Strictly speaking, the German Empire would date from you pwning the French in 1871 to you getting pwned in 1918, while the HRE dated from Otto I pwning the other German princes and Italy in 962 to Bonaparte pwning the Habsburgs in 1806. But that Empire was obviously Roman as ****, hence the tendency to call it German. (not in German, but in English, the HRE is often counted as the first German empire)

But back on topic, your new wording does indeed sound better.

 

Ragusa,

You missed the point. Tolerance implies disagreement. What the text says is that "tolerance activists" call the act of disagreeing with their opinions - their "thruths" - "intolerance", when it is simply "disagreement".
You wrote a lot to say the same thing the author did. Unless you are saying the author meant he has the right to enforce his views on others? Because I simply did not interpret his words like that...
By the way, it is always fun being taught on tolerance by a german - joking
----------------------------------------------------

Tried to be funny, ok, but I just find interesting to note people thrown in these stereotypes and regard it as fun attempts. Meaning I do think such stereotypes are highly infused into people's mind by "tolerant activists".

I am a Slavic Nationalist. I dont like that Slavs mix with non-Slavs, thank you.
--------------------------------------------------

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. The original remark did not clarify that you were only referring to "certain leftist" thinkers...

 

Chandos,

I meant most, and I used Moore and Chomsky as examples. Do you know like-minded people to both of them who do not bash the US?