Some thoughts about "tolerance"?

[Starboard Tack]

I've read many posts in this forum regarding tolerance of religion and tolerance of atheists.

Wikipedia defines "tolerance" as:-

Tolerance or toleration is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I think the key words in this definition are "fair, objective, and permissive attitude". Some definitions use the word "accepting", which I find troubling.

The only word that I find troubling in the above definition is practices, which have the potential to be harmful and/or abusive.

I find the hardest thing to avoid is the tolerance paradox, which arises when a tolerant person is antagonistic toward intolerance, hence intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.

[rug]

1. The dividing line is practice.

Too many people are not satisfied with what's on either side of that line.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Agreed.

I'm OK with practice, as long as nobody is being harmed. Then, of course, we need to define "harm". Childhood indoctrination can be seen as harmful or abusive, as can circumcision. I am tolerant of the beliefs which drive those practices, though not accepting of the practices themselves.

[LostOne4Ever]

2. There is no paradox

Tolerance of the intolerant is not tolerance, it is apathy.

[Starboard Tack]

3. I disagree.

Though I am sometimes guilty of such intolerance, it is something I struggle with. I do not accept the intolerance of others, but I find I can be tolerant of them, not through apathy, but by not catering to them, not accommodating them in any way. I have found that the best weapons against intolerance are humility and tolerance itself, rather than confrontation. The intolerants are always looking for a fight. They need to impose their will on others. They are bullies, but bullies without an audience have no power. They do not derive any power from their disciples and toadies. To satiate their lust for power, they need victims to kick around. They need people who are different to themselves, they need people to hate.

Keep an eye on them, but don't feed them. Don't give them relevance.

[skepticscott]

5. So you "tolerate" people

who beat up and kill homosexuals because their "god" tells them to? You just sit back and "tolerate" in silence when whole groups of people are denied their right to live as full and equal human beings?

Nice.

[Starboard Tack]

8. I appreciate your helping me make my point. I tolerate your intolerance of the tolerant.

I don't approve or support it, but I tolerate it. I tolerate your distortion of what I and others say. I tolerate your justification of your intolerance, as distasteful as it is.
Are you suggesting I should be less tolerant?

[Goblinmonger]

9. This doesn't come across as tolerance

It comes across as passive-aggressive smug superiority.

Just in case you were not intending that.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Thanks for your input.

[trotsky]

11. +1 n/t

[skepticscott]

12. If you "tolerate" bigotry and violence

carried out in the name of religion (as it sounds like you do, unless you're not nearly as tolerant as you pretend), then yes...that kind of tolerance is something that a decent human being should be rejecting.

And unless your "point" is that everyone is (and should be) intolerant of some things, then you don't seem to have one worth making.

I'm tolerant of things that don't harm others or restrict their rights and freedoms. Tolerating things doesn't mean I don't think they're foolish, laughable or offensive, only that I'm ok with letting them go on.

[Starboard Tack]

13. As I said

The only word that I find troubling in the above definition is practices, which have the potential to be harmful and/or abusive.

Tolerance, for me, means being respectful of others beliefs and ideas, regardless of my own beliefs. Being opposed to actions of others is a whole other subject. Those who would associate sexual abuse of children with catholic beliefs, are bigoted and intolerant. Attacking an individual for his actions, including his words, is not bigotry. Attacking him purely for his claim to have some religious faith, is pure bigotry.

Carrying something out, as you say, "in the name of religion", is about actions, not beliefs. We are not held responsible for our beliefs, but we are for our actions.

I am tolerant of your right to be intolerant. That doesn't mean i support or endorse the intolerance, itself. If you use bigotry to spread the hatred and intolerance that you espouse, then you only succeed in further marginalizing yourself.

[skepticscott]

14. It sounds like

you're just as intolerant of other people's actions of a certain type as I am.

Congratulations.

Of course, you still are rather laughably confused about the difference between respecting a belief which is bigoted or at odds with reality (what you do) and respecting someone's right to hold such a belief, while still seeing it for what it is, and condemning it when it deserves condemnation (what I do). You've also missed the point that if you have to "tolerate" something, then you clearly don't respect it. "Tolerating" something means you find something unpleasant or offensive about it, but you put up with it anyway.

And btw, is calling creationists "a bunch of dumbasses" the kind of intolerance you would condemn, if you weren't practicing a blatant double standard?

[Starboard Tack]

16. Does it really sound that way to you?

Being respectful of others' beliefs does not mean acceptance of those beliefs, but rather an acceptance of the right to believe whatever you want. When you act on those beliefs, in an attempt to hurt others then you become an intolerant bigot.
Tolerating something does not mean respecting, as you say. Your attitude towards people of faith is often "unpleasant and offensive", yet we tolerate it. We don't embrace or endorse it, but we tolerate it.
Yes, calling a creationist a "dumbass", purely based on the belief that there was a creator, would be an example of bigotry. Twisting the meaning of another's words to imply they said such a thing, is beyond contempt. Many actions are beyond contempt, including the insulting of an individual purely for their personal beliefs, no matter how abhorrent you may find them.

When a group of Creationists act out in an offensive way toward others, they are no better than a group of Atheists doing the same. Hatred fosters hatred. Tolerance fosters tolerance.

What do you gain from attacking people for expressing their beliefs? What do you gain from insulting them for their beliefs? What do you gain by seeking the suffering of others?

It's not always an easy road to travel, but it is definitely more rewarding when you accept the fact that everyone doesn't feel or think the same way. Imagine what a boring world that would be.

[skepticscott]

17. You're right, there is nothing to be gained

from attacking people for expressing their belief that poor people are just lazy and don't deserve any help. There is nothing to be gained from attacking people for expressing their belief that homosexuals are an abomination and should all burn in hell. I'm sure if you had your way, decent people would stop doing that and just "tolerate" Fred Phelps and his gang of bigots. In your world, we'd keep a nice balance of bigots and decent people, just so things wouldn't get "boring". Fortunately, you don't get your way on that.

And if you're saying that a supposedly "tolerant" person here DIDN'T refer to a group of creationists by saying they were "a bunch of dumbasses", feel free to show how their words were "twisted". And I assume you'll also be taking to task a few famous posters here who don't just twist the words of Richard Dawkins, but make them up out of thin air. Will you have the courage to call them "beyond contempt", too, or are you just blowing more double standard smoke?

Atheists "tolerated" the religious for centuries, because they had no other choice. So we should be getting tons of "tolerance" back from the religionists, right? NOT. An argument that creationists will stop trying to ram their beliefs down everyone's throat if we'd just be nice to them and "respect" their whackadoodle notions (oh my, that was intolerant of me, wasn't it?) is simply ludicrous (oops...more intolerance…bad me!).

[Starboard Tack]

18. Your bigotry may not be as distasteful as that of Phelps, but it is still obnoxious

It only serves to marginalize you. As noble as you consider your extremism to be, it is still extremism, which is fueled by hatred and intolerance of believers in general. The irony is, of course, that you are such a fervent believer in your own righteousness. I'm sure Mr Phelps, the AQ extremists and all fascists, in general, share your views on tolerance. You only accept those who meet your level of intolerance, otherwise you label them as "apologists" and "sellouts".

There are no good fascists. There is no good bigotry.

[okasha]

19. Hammer, nail.

[skepticscott]

20. I see that you're down to nothing but smears and insults now

Not that you ever had much in the way of a convincing argument to begin with here, and no answer to any of the points I raised. Nor any facts to back up one word of what you say. But keep up the hatred for people like me who fight for an end to religiously motivated discrimination and enforced ignorance. I'm sure it makes you and your applauding ilk feel satisfied.

[Starboard Tack]

23. I laud any fight you may be engaged in against discrimination.

I do not hate you Scott. I disdain your methods. You distort what others say and you demonstrate bigotry toward all people of faith.
I tolerate your thinking, but your actions and words are intentionally hurtful. As I said earlier, your vitriol only serves to marginalize you as an extremist.

[trotsky]

21. It is sad that you appear to want to attack and divide Democrats, ST.

skepticscott, and many others that you've launched your vitriol at from time to time, have legitimate concerns about the role of religion in some of the many problems we face in the world today.

Rather than engage and acknowledge them, what I see from behavior such as yours is an attempt to viciously shout down those concerns, marginalize the opinions of fellow Democrats, and avoid dealing with other people's points of view by smearing them as "bigots." Eliminate the individual, and you don't have to acknowledge their opinion. To be fair, you aren't the only person doing this. But you are definitely one of the rudest and most aggressive (and passive-aggressive) about it.

How about we engage in honest discussion instead? Ball's in your court, ST. What are you going to do with it?

[Starboard Tack]

22. Attack and divide? Nonsense.

I call out bigotry when I see it. The fact that it comes from a fellow Democrat, or a fellow Atheist, is all the more reason. I also have legitimate concerns about religion and the damage that has been caused by religious fanatics. I do not marginalize the opinions of fellow Democrats, they do that themselves. When you or Scott attack others for showing tolerance of beliefs, you marginalize yourselves. When you mock and deride fellow Democrats for their religious beliefs, do you think that is engaging them and helping create a better world? You are the dividers.

I don't smear you as bigots. You demonstrate your bigotry by lumping all who do not march in lockstep with you in your hatred of religious belief. I judge people by their actions, not by their personal beliefs.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

Do you want to discuss where I'm wrong about Scott?

[trotsky]

25. But that's the problem.

You seem to define "bigotry" as "opinions I don't like." It's a vicious, loaded word, and poisons the well. You wield it as a weapon to attack and divide rather than work to engage and discuss. The hatred has spiraled so far out of control now that people argue against caricatures of each other.

You started this thread by noting that "tolerance" doesn't mean "acceptance." There are religious viewpoints, indeed non-religious viewpoints too, that I cannot accept. I assume there are some that you can't either. Yet you attack scott and others as bigots, but apparently don't see how someone could then use that same label on you.

How about we dial down the toxicity, stop with the name-calling, and engage in actual discussion? Would you be willing to do that?

[skepticscott]

40. I think we know now

why the Interfaith Room, with all its promise of civil discussions, has been such a crashing success.

[skepticscott]

27. By your rather quaint definition

(Which presumes prejudices in defining bigotry, a rather obvious and idiotic flaw), most DUers are bigoted against conservatives. Care to discuss that? Care to discuss your take on the hatred and intolerance expressed towards conservatives and conservative beliefs and opinions on this site every single day?

Have at it. And while you're at it, see if you can actually back up your label of me as a "bigot" with facts, not just the poo flinging you seem to relish.

[Starboard Tack]

30. Maybe you should publish your own dictionary

The Dictionary according to Scott.

Now you accuse most DUers of being bigoted. That's quite an indictment. Please explain how they fit into that description.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

I have a few friends and family, who are Conservatives and some vote Republican. None that I can think of are bigots. None are racist or judgmental of others because of their religious beliefs. You see, bigotry necessitates prejudice.
Do you prejudge individuals based on their voting habits? Really? Attacking politicians is not bigotry. They are attacked here for what they say and do, not for their skin color or religious affiliation, unless they use that to distort reality, like Jesse Helms. Bigots themselves are fair game, and should be called out.

You don't distinguish between institutions, or established groups and individuals. That is the basis of bigotry, guilt by association.
Hating someone's beliefs or opinions is not bigotry. Intolerance and hatred of individuals, solely because they espouse certain beliefs is bigotry.



I don't need to troll through your posts to back up my "label" of you. You demonstrate it in virtually every post in this thread, mostly by defending it.

[skepticscott]

32. Ah, yes..as expected

"I have not one shred of actual evidence that you're a bigot, you just ARE, cuz, well, cuz, well...you just ARE! It's obvious! I don't need evidence! If I repeat it enough times, that makes it true!"

Where have I heard that shit before?

And I accuse DUers of nothing. I simply point out that under your misbegotten definition of bigotry, many DUers would qualify (since they certainly treat or view conservatives with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of their opinions). Are you going to be deliberately obtuse and say you're not aware of any such examples, or should I make you look even more foolish by posting a bunch? It's not DUers that are flawed, it's your notions of "tolerance" and "bigotry"

[Starboard Tack]

35. Am I to gather from this that you dismiss anyone who claims to be a conservative?

Again, you seem to live in a world of extremes, where anyone who doesn't toe your particular party line is fair game to be labeled.
Most DUers (I notice you've downgraded that to many), like most people, are actually not bigots. Despising an idea does not mean despising the person who holds that idea. You can try to label DUers as bigots all day long, and a handful probably are, but the majority, as you claim? I think not.
I have some wonderful friends, whom I would trust my life to and love dearly, yet I find some of their political and religious beliefs anathema. If they want to discuss them, I'm happy to give my opinion, but I don't find it necessary to personally insult them. YMMV

Those of us who use dictionaries are "misbegotten"

?

I'm done with you for now, but I hope you've learned as much as I have from this exchange.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Maybe you'd care to stand by this little gem of yours.

And if you're saying that a supposedly "tolerant" person here DIDN'T refer to a group of creationists by saying they were "a bunch of dumbasses", feel free to show how their words were "twisted".

Those dumbasses may have been creationists, but were also probably white and nominally Christian, but if I recall correctly, and most importantly, they were legislators and their acting like "dumbasses" was related to them being legislators.

Now, maybe you'd like to tell us all why you are attacking another DU member, and twisting the meaning of their words. Attacking someone who is not participating in this thread. Oh, right, guilt by association. If I can't get some shit to stick on one member of the family, I'll just throw it at the whole family. Bound to stick somewhere.

Thanks again for proving my point.

[skepticscott]

44. Just highlighting the hypocrisy

of both you and someone else who prances around the room on a daily basis, upbraiding others for insulting people because of their beliefs, while doing the same thing themselves all the time.

It's one thing to say that someone did a dumbassed thing at one particular moment in time, but that's not what happened. This person simply called a whole group of religious believers that they had never met and never spoken to "dumbasses". How bigoted is that? Pot, kettle. Hypocrisy, double standard...your stock in trade.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Which God tells people to do that?

I tolerate people's rights to their beliefs, not necessarily their actions, nor the beliefs themselves. I tolerate your belief that anyone who believes in a God is delusional and that it is OK to insult them, purely because of their personal religious belief. Beliefs, in themselves, do not deny anyone's rights. Actions may, however, and when I witness such actions I stand up against them. If they want to hate gays and think that hatred is justified by their religious belief, they have every right to think that, sick as it may be. If they, in any way, try to impinge on the rights of gays, or hurt them, purely because they are gay, then I condemn them for their actions. If you try to impinge on the rights of individuals' to believe whatever they want, or you try to hurt them for exercising their right to think and believe, then I condemn you for your actions.

Nobody should be denied any basic rights, especially the right to think for himself. As disgusting as some people's thoughts are, they are benign unless and until they are acted upon. When ugly ideas of hatred and bigotry are preached to the masses, it inevitably ends badly.

Same with baseless accusations, and twisting another's words. If I were to "sit back in silence", I wouldn't be posting this.
There is no such thing as good bigotry and if you think there is, what does that say about you?

[LostOne4Ever]

36. According to your definition

Tolerance is defined by a permissive attitude toward different thoughts and opinions from ones own. Thus, when you allow intolerance you are giving the intolerant your permission to act that way. Thus making one an accessory to said intolerance. One can not be both tolerant and an accessory to intolerance at the same time. This is a contradiction in terms.

Thus, either one of your premises is wrong or your conclusion.

Further, being tolerant of intolerance results in one being permissive to everything (apathy) and makes the term tolerant completely meaningless. For example, the segregationist were intolerant of african americans having equal rights. But using the word tolerant the way you are using it means one could call the civil rights leaders intolerant of the segregationist. Thus rendering both words tolerant and intolerant meaningless.

Thus, the very definition of the term must include within it an exception for tolerating intolerance for the word to have meaning. It is because of this that we have rules in math like you can not divide by zero and Zermelo set theory. Thus the paradox only exists if your definition is incorrect, immature, or naive and should be modified in an non-ad hoc manner.

With this in mind, I must respectfully stand by my statement that tolerating intolerance is not tolerance, it is apathy.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Let me try again.

Permitting freedom of thought is not the same as permitting actions based on those thoughts.
There is a huge and distinct difference between thoughts/opinions and actions.
As painful as it sometimes is to listen to the thoughts of racists and bigots, in general, the tolerance I speak of is tolerance of their rights to have thoughts, at times, even voice them. In no way do I accept them, but I acknowledge their right to embrace ideas of their choosing.
If they act on these ideas of intolerance to the point of injuring, or potentially injuring others, then they should be held accountable and be subject to sanction.

This is an area where I sometimes come into conflict with the ACLU and its defense of Ist Amendment rights. I draw the line, when it comes to allowing the incitement of hatred, like the KKK marches through Jewish neighborhoods.

Did you read what Popper had to say in post #24? He says it better than I can.

The line he touches on is the one between thought and action. I think that if thoughts are private, or shared only among intimates, then they pose no social danger and should be tolerated. I don't think anyone wants the alternative, which is suppression of individual thought. Where do you draw the line? I draw it when malicious thoughts become actions. At times, that could mean access to a big enough soapbox. I think Fox News gets very close to this line.

[LostOne4Ever]

43. If it is just their thoughts

Then they aren't being intolerant. If anything by choosing not to act on those thoughts or beliefs they are being tolerant as they are being permissive. In this case they are being permissive to ideas they don't agree with. Again, from the definition you provided.

I believe that incitement to violence is one of the limitations we currently have on free speech and if someone is trying to start a fight to get people arrested I would not call that "tolerance" as they are not being permissive .

But lets use that example anyways. Lets say the KKK did march through a african american or Jewish Neighborhood. They are expressing a very vile message that incites someone to attack them. Do we let the attacker go free? No, we put them on trial for assault. This is another example of not tolerating intolerance and at no point have we outlawed their group or forbidden them from ever expressing their views at all. Because we tolerate them. Conversely, tolerating EVERYTHING would mean never taking a stand on anything...thus apathy.

Yes, I read Dr. Poppers statement you posted. I agree with parts but not others. I agree that tolerating intolerance will lead to the destruction of tolerance altogether (though I phrased it differently saying that tolerating intolerance renders both terms meaningless). But the part where he claiming that we should reserve the right to suppress intolerant views by force I strongly disagree with. The ending sounds almost like he is calling for thought crime. But ultimately, I don't see the point in quoting him as I reject the base premise: That there is some sort of contradiction in not tolerating the intolerant.

Or more exactly, I find the definition you used to be flawed. It contains within it a contradiction that renders the term meaningless. Even by adding a distinction between thoughts and actions the same contradiction remains. Any action to stop intolerance is intolerant by itself. In order for the term to have any real meaning I would figure there would have to be a reciprocatory clause within it as well to avoid this problem. Thus, for the principle of toleration to have any meaning we can not tolerate intolerance. When others seek to curtail the rights of others we must rise to stop them.

But for this to work we need an exact definition of tolerance. Yet it seems like every site has their own definition of the term and that the meaning of tolerant and intolerant in these conversations is constantly shifting. For instance in post 8 you call Skeptic Scott intolerant. While you could accuse him of not being PC I don't see him trying to shut down your conversation at all. Though he strongly disagrees with your position he has been very permissive of it the entire time as well. So by the definition you provided he would be tolerant. However, if you use one of the other definitions that includes the word "acceptance" as a part of tolerance then it would be possible to label him as such.

Either way, tolerance needs to be a two way street. Both those who agree and disagree should endure and allow the opinions of the other so long as that other reciprocates the same permissiveness and no harm is done to either party or to a third party not yet mentioned.

/whew that was longer than I intended


TLDR:

Tolerating the intolerant renders the principle of tolerance meaningless and results in apathy.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Your last sentence says it all, and there lies the paradox.

I think we agree that tolerance of thought is OK, regardless of the thought, but tolerance of action is a whole other thing. Words are a consequence of action and can be damaging and injurious at times. They can be used to incite hatred and violence. When we fail to stand up and speak out against that kind of intolerance, then I agree, we fall into apathy.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think we should attack and vilify good people, solely because they share some beliefs with bad people? Do you think it is OK to accuse anyone who claims to be a Christian, of being an apologist or supporter of haters like Phelps, of being accessories to the murder of abortionists, of supporting gay bashing? Do you think all practising Catholics are tacitly supporting priests who sexually abuse children? Do you think it's OK to describe all people of faith, as being dumb and indoctrinated and delusional? Do you think it's OK to mock people purely because they believe in some kind of deity?

Ok, that was more than a question, but I think you know what I'm getting at.

[LostOne4Ever]

54. My answers

Do you think we should attack and vilify good people, solely because they share some beliefs with bad people?

Depends. What beliefs do they share? That black people are inferior to whites? Or that Window Curtains are pretty nifty?

If its the former, then sure we should. If the latter, then of course not. Just because Hitler (invoking Godwins law here and now XD ) thought window curtains are nifty doesn't mean you are a nazi if you like them too.

The problem with this question is your qualifier of the word "good." How are they good? Because they do charity work? Or are you setting up a question where whatever belief they share with bad people can not be bad itself because "good" people would never share a "bad" belief?

Do you think it is OK to accuse anyone who claims to be a Christian, of being an apologist or supporter of haters like Phelps, of being accessories to the murder of abortionists, of supporting gay bashing?

ANYONE who claims to be a Christian? Of course not. That said, for those who do act as apologists/supporters of haters, they should be called out.


Do you think all practicing Catholics are tacitly supporting priests who sexually abuse children?

ALL practicing Catholics? No.

Do you think it's OK to describe all people of faith, as being dumb and indoctrinated and delusional?

Dumb and indoctrinated? Nope.

Delusional? Depends on what is meant by the definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusional?show=0&t=1390110392

If you mean the first definition: "a belief that is not true : a false idea"

Then depending on whether or not God exists or ones frame of reference then its possible. If there are no gods/spirits/etc then technically they are right. If one means delusional in that said atheist holds their belief to be true then to them the first definition fits in relation to their view. IE Hercules holding the world on his shoulders was the truth to some Roman pagans back in antiquity; but to us its a myth.

I think you are talking more about: " a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness"

Then, no, I do not think ALL people of faith are delusional.

Do you think it's OK to mock people purely because they believe in some kind of deity?

Because they believe in SOME kind of deity? No.

But if they believed in something completely ridiculous like lets say a dancing diapered iceburg lettuce god then maybe. There is a difference between the god of Thomas Paine and something like that.

Generally I feel there is a difference between mocking the person and mocking the religion. Sometimes the individual person can deserve it, but for groups of people in general I find it mean spirited, petty, and bigoted.

The religion, as a concept and as a whole are a different story. They are not people but rather ideas. If you don't make this distinction you are damning countless comedians and classic authors like Mark Twain.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Thank you for a truly thoughtful response

We are on the same page.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Thank you.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Here is what Karl Popper had to say about the paradox.

And I tend to agree with him.

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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

[skepticscott]

4. Not everything deserves "tolerance"

Not if you're a decent human being, anyway. Practices that harm other people or restrict their rights deserve none, despite the claims of Kumbaya-singing moonbats who like to fling the smear of "intolerant" at people who criticize such things from religion.

[2ndAmForComputers]

56. This is the correct answer.

[pinto]

15. To refashion a classic theatrical meme - Intolerance is Easy. Tolerance is Hard.

I think there's something to that.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Very true.

But tolerating another's beliefs, as distasteful as one may find them, is something to strive for. Tolerating their actions is something else entirely.
As another poster noted, tolerance does not mean acceptance.
I like Karl Popper's take (post #24)

[skepticscott]

28. And yet you just love

branding people who adhere to it as "intolerant" anyway.

What a shock.

[Starboard Tack]

29. That is because you are intolerant of those who respect the rights of others to believe

You don't just judge actions and words, but the right to have ideas which differ from your own. You lump all catholics as apologists for the sexual abuse of children by priests. You attack people based on their personal or family relationships. You judge by association, rather than on personal merit.
I do not brand you. You brand yourself. You show no humility, nor any desire to understand the thoughts and feelings of others. You talk a lot, but you don't appear to listen much, especially when it might challenge your well established and rigid opinions.

Tell me whom I have branded. I have pointed out that you are intolerant, as you have yourself. How is that branding? That's like calling the Pope Catholic. You have branded yourself as a bigot, by not respecting the rights of others to believe as they wish.

Please, tell me if I'm wrong. Maybe this list of synomyms and antonyms for bigotry may help.

Synonyms
dogmatism, illiberalism, illiberality, illiberalness, intolerance, intolerantness, narrow-mindedness, opinionatedness, partisanship, sectarianism, small-mindedness

Antonyms
broad-mindedness, liberalism, liberality, open-mindedness, tolerance

Now, you tell me which of these apply to you.

[skepticscott]

31. More baseless smears and poo flinging

That is because you are intolerant of those who respect the rights of others to believe.

As stated, I respect the right of others to hold whatever beliefs they want. Show us where I have ever said the opposite. What I don't do is recognize the right of anyone to have the opinions or beliefs they express be immune from examination or criticism. Nor does any thinking person, since no such "right" exists.

Seriously, do you ever use facts, or do you just throw whatever you can at people and hope something sticks?

[Starboard Tack]

34. Nice bit of backpedaling there.

As stated, I respect the right of others to hold whatever beliefs they want. Show us where I have ever said the opposite. What I don't do is recognize the right of anyone to have the opinions or beliefs they express be immune from examination or criticism. Nor does any thinking person, since no such "right" exists.

OK, "examination and criticism". I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

Do you contend that you don't ever go beyond "examination and criticism"? Into the realm of personal attacks and insults, based on personal beliefs?

[skepticscott]

39. I asked you to prove

that I am "intolerant of those who respect the rights of others to believe". You failed. Again. You've failed to provide a shred of evidence to back up even one of your personal attacks, despite multiple requests. All you do is fling more feces.

We're done here.

[rug]

41. You were done at post 18.

[Starboard Tack]

45. LOL. I think it's time for a swim.

[kwassa]

48. You've just done it in this very post.

that I am "intolerant of those who respect the rights of others to believe". You failed. Again. You've failed to provide a shred of evidence to back up even one of your personal attacks, despite multiple requests. All you do is fling more feces.

We're done here.

Accusing someone of flinging feces is a personal attack.

[rug]

53. For some it's a compulsion.

[skepticscott]

57. Oh please..is that the best you can do?

Accusing someone of flinging feces is a perfectly apt description, when they've done nothing but hurl insults and unfounded smears for the whole thread, without ever backing them up. And despite your horseshit, I HAVE tolerated that, just to let everyone see how ugly and hostile this poster is, despite their claiming to value civil discussion. Just like I'm tolerating you now.

Yes or no..is calling someone a bigot a personal attack? Do you have the courage and integrity to answer that question honestly and directly?

[skepticscott]

73. Still waiting for an honest answer

Is calling someone a "bigot" a personal attack? Yes or no?

[kwassa]

74. Yes, it is.

So is accusing someone of flinging feces.

[skepticscott]

75. Nice try

But one is about the content and tone of someone's posts. The other is directed at them personally.

And since you've righteously jumped into this thread to restore order and civility, I take it you'll also be scolding the poster here who, by your own judgement, DID make a personal attack..right?

Or will you join them in hypocrisy and a double standard? Your choice.

[kwassa]

76. False distinction.

Accusing someone of flinging feces is not dealing with the substance, or lack thereof, of those posts. It is characterizing them with a slur, and ignoring what those posts actually say.

Flinging feces is also a common activity of chimpanzees, so it comparing the poster to a chimp, indirectly. That is what I immediately picked up from your comment.

The only hypocrisy I am addressing is yours.

And yes, I do make personal attacks from time to time.

[okasha]

77. Six out of six jurors

to whom ss's little buddy submitted an alert on this very point agreed that scott had not been personally attacked. That horse is dead.

[kwassa]

78. Sounds about right to me.

[skepticscott]

81. I really couldn't care less

about the acumen of a DU jury on an alert I didn't even send. Kwassa admitted quite honestly to the belief that it was a personal attack, though. This is about the hypocrisy of someone who weighs in righteously to scold one poster for what they consider to be a personal attack, while ignoring the same thing right next to it.

So please, neither of you should waste time pretending that this is anything but personal animosity.

[skepticscott]

80. False distinction? Not at all...a distinction that

makes you look foolish, yes. Accusing someone of flinging feces is exactly about pointing out the lack of substance of their posts, and that they were not made with any intellectual intent, but only to smear someone and be insulting. The metaphor is very apt. Your projection of Starboard Tack as a chimp is your own business.

[kwassa]

84. There was no substance to your comment.

"Flinging feces" is merely a gratuitous insult, and in no way deals with the specific issues addressed by the other poster. If you had, that would have been a substantive post. As it was, your post was merely insulting without dealing with those issues.

The other poster was right about your behavior, too.

[skepticscott]

85. Repeating that over and over doesn't make it true..sorry

And if you had read the exchanges unblinded by personal animosity, you would have noticed that I offered them a chance to back up their accusation with facts..over and over. They refused (since they have none to cite), but simply continued to hatefully fling the labels of bigotry and intolerance. Yes, that IS akin to flinging feces.

Do you agree or disagree that a reasonable person would have backed up their accusations of bigotry and intolerance with evidence when asked to? Or would a reasonable person have just kept hurling the same insults? What would YOU have done?

[skepticscott]

86. Still waiting for an honest answer

Do you agree or disagree that a reasonable person would have backed up their accusations of bigotry and intolerance with evidence when asked to? Or would a reasonable person have just kept hurling the same insults? What would YOU have done?

Are you really interested in discussing facts, or did you just inject yourself into this thread to try to pile on more snark and smearing? If the latter, it's not working very well. Actually, you're not doing swimmingly at the former, either.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. "...regarding tolerance of religion and tolerance of atheists." Interesting how beliefs are...

equated with people. Frankly, I find this entire OP to be nothing more than just a revolting exercise in religious privilege. Why the fuck are you treating religion, a set of beliefs as if they are people?

You didn't say atheism, or even non-belief, no you said atheists.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Beliefs are not equated with people. They belong to people.

Beliefs don't exist apart from people. Each individual has his/her own personal beliefs. Tolerance is about respecting the individual's right to believe whatever they choose.
what do you mean by "a revolting exercise in religious privilege"?
The post is about tolerance and what it means, if anything. It is a word often used in this forum. Do you have a problem with discussing and clarifying what it means to each of us? The concept of tolerance does not belong to religion or atheism. It is a trait shown by individuals of all types and beliefs, as is intolerance.

I speak out against the intolerance of extremists, be they fundamentalist Christians, Muslims or fellow Atheists. I tend to speak out more here against extreme Atheists, who in no way represent me, nor any of the atheists or agnostics that I personally know. We expect Catholic DUers to stand up against the intolerance of the Catholic church, and they should. Do you think intolerant atheists should get a free pass?

[Humanist_Activist]

49. The fact that you talk about extremist atheists as if they even exist in the same ballpark...

as fundamentalists of any stripe simply tells me you really don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Here, let me be clear to you, you were talking about people respecting beliefs, fuck beliefs, they don't deserve respect if they are reprehensible or illogical or silly, they should never be given automatic respect, period.

But people do get at least a modicrum of respect as people, and one of the ways to respect them is to respect their rights to hold silly, damaging, illogical beliefs, and even tolerate their expressing of those beliefs, insofar as we respect their right to free speech. And we shall exercise our right to free speech to condemn those beliefs as often and as voraciously as we want as long as we don't violate any of their rights. Am I clear? Does this really need further explanation?

I have met plenty of atheists who are intolerant of religion, I have yet to meet one who is intolerant of people, or want to violate the religious freedom of people. But I have met many religious people that fantasize (and some cases succeed, in other countries), being able to kill, imprison, or otherwise punish atheists for things like blasphemy, apostasy, etc.

So, frankly, any comparison you make is not just fucking silly, its downright insulting to atheists.

[Starboard Tack]

50. No, I wasn't talking about respecting their beliefs. Read what I said again.

I respect their RIGHT to believe whatever they want. As I respect your right to believe whatever you want. What I don't respect is when others distort and misquote others to justify their own bigotry.
Challenge and attack beliefs all day long. I have no problem with that. Attacking individuals on a personal level for their beliefs, as Skepticscott does, is bigotry. Displaying contempt for those who seek common ground with fellow liberals, regardless of faith, is divisive and extremist. Accusing those atheists who support progressive religionists as apologists for all the crimes of the church, is fascist.

Sorry if I'm not bitter enough, or angry enough for the purists, but I treat individuals the same as they treat me, regardless of any philosophical alignment.

I'm not an atheist because of the evil that religion has wrought upon the world, or because the Pope opposes contraception, ot that nutters like Phelps and Robertson spout their venom. I'm an atheist because I do not believe in a creator. It's that simple. just couldn't get my head around that whole concept. Maybe that doesn't make me a "true atheist", I don't know. My glass is half full, always has been. I have faith in the human to overcome, but if others need to believe or want to believe in a creator, it's no skin off my nose.

I don't like mean spirited people, regardless of their beliefs.

[Humanist_Activist]

51. "But tolerating another's beliefs, as distasteful as one may find them, is something to strive for."

So you now disagree with what you posted above?

I don't care if you think its mean spirited but I don't really care that much what superstitions people believe, I do care about their beliefs about other people, for example, racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. I don't care what they use as a justification either, whether religious or not, I attack both.

These types of beliefs, which can lead to damaging actions, need to be marginalized, NOT tolerated. Look at what happens to open racists nowadays, granted, racism isn't dead, but at least its mostly underground, and given time and more pressure, it will, hopefully, die off. Are we not to do the same with homophobia and misogyny? Its already happening with homophobia, though less consistently, and even with racism its not driven underground fully.

Also, can you give an example of skepticsott's use of personal attacks?

[Starboard Tack]

52. Tolerating is not respecting. Jeez! Don't you see the difference?

I do not tolerate having my words twisted. I tolerate people who have beliefs different to my own. Sometimes I respect those beliefs, sometimes not. I do not respect or tolerate hateful acts. Tolerance and marginalizatin are not mutually exclusive. Scott is a perfect example. He is tolerated, but occasionally, he marginalizes himself. We tolerate the KKK, repulsive as it is, but we also marginalize it. Homophobia is tolerated as a belief. Hell, it is preached in many churches, but homophobes are also marginalized, as are all extremists. But, in essence, they all marginalize themselves.
You will find that the more extreme your actions, including your words, the more you will marginalize yourself. Most people are tolerant of others until they marginalize themselvesugh wods and/or actions.

You say you don't care if I think it's mean spirited, and you shouldn't. You should care because it is mean spirited. I really don't want to put Scott on trial by listing examples of his personal attacks, but you can search his posts, if you are a star member. There are examples in this thread, where he refers to my wife as a hypocrite, which of course makes me even worse than a hypocrite. Apparently she posted that she thought a bunch of homophobic legislators in Oklahama or Arkansas (I don't remember as it was 2 to 3 years ago) were dumbasses. Yes, she called them a "bunch of dumbasses" for passing legislation that required teaching Creationism as a Science in public schools. And they were dumbasses. However, our friend Scott decided to imply that she was calling them "dumbasses" solely because of their religious beliefs and therefore a hypocritical bigot, whereas she was referring to their actions. Now, what kind of peron carries that kind of shit around for years and still tries to use it as a weapon against her and , by association, against me?

I don't know you and I don't hang out in religion, but I come here every few months to see what's being discussed. I noticed that tolerance had come up and decided to do an OP and share my thoughts and maybe learn from others. Look at post #5 and tell me how this person is trying to have any kind of constructive discussion. Then read the rest of his posts. If you agree with him, then so be it.
Meanwhile, it's been interesting talking with you.

[Humanist_Activist]

72. You seem to not be interested in differentiating between tolerating people versus beliefs.

Why do you have this difficulty?

[eomer]

58. The problem is the double standard and the facile way that it switches at will.

So here's what you say your apparently large gripe is with skepticscott:

Do you contend that you don't ever go beyond "examination and criticism"? Into the realm of personal attacks and insults, based on personal beliefs?

And yet you yourself say this in the same thread:

I'm not an atheist because of the evil that religion has wrought upon the world, or because the Pope opposes contraception, or that nutters like Phelps and Robertson spout their venom.

That clearly is going beyond examination and criticism into the realm of personal attacks and insults ("nutters&quot based on the personal beliefs of Phelps and Robertson.

I don't really have a problem with calling Phelps and Robertson "nutters" (seeing as how they are) but I think that if that's acceptable then so is the much milder calling someone "delusional". You want the former to be okay because it's criticizing something that crossed your personal line in the sand but then you want to condemn others for doing exactly the same thing just because they draw the line in a different place than you do. And both you and cbayer do this with an anger and a persistence that itself seems like a prejudice.

[Starboard Tack]

60. There is no double standard

I don't criticize Phelps and Robertson for their belief in God. I criticize them for their hatred and divisiveness. The same reason I criticize skepticscott. They all see themselves as leaders, and as such, they feel free to distort the words of others to suit their own ends. They all want to draw a distinct line in the sand between good and evil, based on their own interpretation of the Bible and religion.

The Bible preaches tolerance, yet some of the most vocal intolerants quote the Bible in support of that intolerance. That does not mean that all people of Judeo-Christian faiths are intolerant bigots. Nor does it mean that all people of faith are apologists for the extremists.
Christian DUers speak out against intolerance all the time here. Yet they are attacked by Scott and his followers as apologists.
This is a classic tactic of bullying. Guilt by association.

By all means attack the actions of bigots, but don't attack individuals because they may share some common spiritual or philosophical belief with those bigots.

I am an atheist purely because I do not believe in a god creator. Should I be associated with the likes of bigoted atheists who hate everything and anyone religious?
I don't like organized religion and didn't when I attended church as a teenager. It didn't appeal to me. So I stopped attending church. That didn't stop me searching for a meaning to life and a spiritual path.

What I'm saying is, that just because we label ourselves as atheists, we don't have some duty to mock, deride or hate those who aren't, or to call them to task for the evil acts of a few. I have Muslim family members, who are the gentlest of people. Should I blame them for the horrific acts of the Taliban and AQ or their remarks?

I share some beliefs and opinions with skepticscott, but I would never associate myself with his ugly remarks and bigotry.

[eomer]

62. You don't criticize their belief in God but what about their other beliefs?

Don't you criticize any of those?

[Starboard Tack]

63. I criticize lots of beliefs, but am tolerant of their right to believe whatever they want.

One has an innate right to think and form beliefs, no matter how repugnant those beliefs may be. I criticize and confront extremism and intolerance wherever I encounter it. It only serves to alienate and marginalize those who practice it.

Belief in some kind of deity is totally subjective, regardless of any institutional dogma. God can be defined in an infinite number of ways, by both believers and non-believers. For example, I could argue that I believe in the existence of God and still be an atheist. How, you may ask? Well, I believe that man created God in his own image, rather than the other way around. To my knowledge, man is the only being that creates anything, because he is able to conceptualize. So it makes sense that he also came up with the concept of God. Same as he came up with the concepts like messiah, role model, general, president, and superman.

No harm in that, until he starts building a religion, or a movement around the concept, and a following. That's when things get dodgy and the possibility of fascism rears its ugly head. Same thing applies on the other side of the coin. Intolerance is the fodder of extremism. Tolerance is the enemy of extremism, regardless the flavor.

[eomer]

69. Right, you did notice I hope that everyone here agrees about the right to believe.

With regard to Phelps and Westboro Baptist I think they have some beliefs that you will agree should be criticized. In particular, they hold up a sign that says "God hates ___s", a belief that I certainly do denounce in the strongest possible terms.

[Starboard Tack]

70. Yes, and I hope the same. I have no disagreement with you.

I denounce all forms of bigotry when I see it.

[skepticscott]

71. And yet, when other people advocate that

you call it "intolerant", and bigoted in its own right.

[skepticscott]

64. Talk about twisting

Pot, kettle. Show us one person who "hates everything and everyone religious". PROVE IT. I call total bullshit.

And when you're done with that, we'll talk about all of the other distortions that YOU see fit to engage in, in just this one post.

[Starboard Tack]

65. As I said, I'm done with you.

Come back when you want to engage in conversation. Meanwhile, take some time off for everyone's sake.

[skepticscott]

66. And yet again, you can't prove one thing you say.

This must be so hard for you. Trotsky offered you chances to be civil and you didn't accept. I've offered you many, many chances to back up your ugly smears and accusations, and to ground this discussion in facts and evidence, and you avoided that too. I even tried to make it simple for you, and do things one at a time. You can't be civil, you won't be honest (despite wanting desperately to appear to be both), so what's left?

Nothing worth respecting, that's for sure.

[Starboard Tack]

67. What part of "I'm done with you" don't you understand.

I have nothing to prove. You took care of that all by yourself. Here, mull over this and maybe you'll figure it out.

Juror #6 kinda puts it in a nutshell.

On Sun Jan 19, 2014, 09:28 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

There is no double standard
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=108199

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another poster a bigot in the last line :"I share some beliefs and opinions with skepticscott, but I would never associate myself with his ugly remarks and bigotry"

That is unnecessary, over the top, and makes DU suck. He is not even conversing with skepicscott when he makes this remark. It is possible to disagree with posters without calling them bigots.

He also personally attacks this same poster throughout the body of this post, and in the first paragraph of his post he states that poster Skepiscott is equivalent to fred phelps and the duck dynasty bigot. Again, over the top and unnecessary attacks and rhetoric on another poster. Surely he can disagree without equating those he dsagrees with as bigots, homophobes, and hate-mongers.


People are mighty touchy around here.



You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 19, 2014, 09:38 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't understand the alert. I don't see a TOS violation here.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: On it's own the post isn't offensive, over the top, or disruptive, a strong opinion at worst .
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: nothing wrong with the post
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He doesn't call Skepticscott a bigot, he refers to his remarks as bigoted. Skeptiscott is one of the most aggressive posters in this forum and he will reap what he sows. This is not only a not very confrontational post, it's an example of a pretty good bit of discussion. Better than one might find hereabouts.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

But hey, look on the bright side. Somebody is watching your back and learning from you tactics of distorting the truth. I don't recall calling you a "homophobe" or referring to some "duck dynasty" guy. Hmm, I wonder who your "guardian angel" is

[skepticscott]

68. Ummmm..the part of "I'm done with you"

that involves you continuing to flail around responding to my posts? Not quite getting that part, no.

[PassingFair]

59. Overheard on the sidelines of my daughter's soccer game:

Mom One: Where is Johnna going to school next year?

Mom Two: Blah Blah Public School. We're having to pull the kids out of St. Stigmata, John's not getting any overtime at work
and we just can't afford it this year.

Mom One: Well, I've heard its a pretty good school.

Mom Two: Yeah, but I'm a little afraid about it, what with all the "tolerance" and stuff they promote.

Mom Three (Me): GOBSMACKED

[Starboard Tack]

61. Priceless!

Made my day.

[longship]

79. I don't give a damn about what other people think.

That's my measure of tolerance on these matters. When I discuss things with others, and I disagree with them, they should understand that that does not mean that I believe that they in any way don't have the right to argue back just as passionately. Such polite but passionate discussions are common here. (Hopefully polite.)

What people think does not bother me, but I am very concerned about how they act. Then, I may very well have to speak out loudly against what they are doing. Some would call that religious oppression. I call it religious freedom.

[Starboard Tack]

82. I couldn't agree more.

The thoughts of others are irrelevant. Their actions are what counts.

[skepticscott]

83. Obviously, nobody minds about things that are only thought

and never said out loud with the intention of influencing others, or acted upon directly, since we're never even aware of them to be bothered in the first place. I don't care at all what people have in their heads only, since it doesn't affect me or others in any way.

But that's not really what we're talking about when "tolerance" is mentioned, is it? If you're never even aware of something, there's nothing to "tolerate". It's those things that ARE spoken or acted upon, that require judgement as far as whether they should be permitted, but spoken vigorously against, or simply stopped. Despite continued posturing by some here, everyone is tolerant of some things and not of others.