"Be accepting of others views" doesn't apply to racism?

[spuddyt]

Racism involves a factual inaccuracy as far as I am concerned: that a black man is inherently bound to be less intelligent/stronger bodied/more animalistic than a white man, when statistcs show this simply is not the case.

 

[lenin_117]

Racism involves a factual inaccuracy as far as I am concerned: that a black man is inherently bound to be less intelligent/stronger bodied/more animalistic than a white man, when statistcs show this simply is not the case.

But as an opinion, what gives a man less right to hold it rather then another one?

 

[Soxafloppin]

Well employers dont want there employee's hating anyone.

 

[Halceon]

Since racism is making a round on the forums, I figure I may as well throw this in. When people say they are open minded and don't try to force their opinions on others, this usually doesn't include racism. If you went to work (or whatever your daily grind is) tomorrow and said openly that you hate black people and think they should be made into slaves, there wouldn't be a lot of people who would respond with "While I disagree with your opinion I respect it as your belief". Why is this not included?

Regardless of your beliefs, you can't announce that you disrepsect people and then expect respect from others for your disrespectfulness. It's paradoxical.

That is exactly what i expect. More precisely, i expect people to be consistent and hold views that they say they do. If you say "I respect every opinion", then i will demand you respect each and every possible opinion or admit intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

"Respecting one`s opinion" only really works if it applies both ways. A racist, however, is not likely to respect the opinion of those he dislikes. If he did, then it is unlikely he would wish something as ill as slavery upon them. Afterall, that then puts them in a position where their opinion is not respected.

You cannot demand that your opinion be respected. You need to earn that respect by respecting other people`s opinions yourself. So if racists want their opinion to be respected, they need to respect the opinion of others as well...yes, including of those they hold prejudices against.

So essentially, it ends up being a Catch-22 situation. Racists need to respect the views of others in order to have their views respected, yet their own prejudices preclude them from respecting the opinions of those they harbor ill-will for.

 

[BonsaiK]

Since racism is making a round on the forums, I figure I may as well throw this in. When people say they are open minded and don't try to force their opinions on others, this usually doesn't include racism. If you went to work (or whatever your daily grind is) tomorrow and said openly that you hate black people and think they should be made into slaves, there wouldn't be a lot of people who would respond with "While I disagree with your opinion I respect it as your belief". Why is this not included?

Regardless of your beliefs, you can't announce that you disrepsect people and then expect respect from others for your disrespectfulness. It's paradoxical.

That is exactly what i expect. More precisely, i expect people to be consistent and hold views that they say they do. If you say "I respect every opinion", then i will demand you respect each and every possible opinion or admit intellectual dishonesty.

Fair enough, but I certainly don't respect every opinion. I don't respect the opinions of those unwilling to learn and practice basic human values such as not hating someone just because they look different.

 

[Xbowhyena]

I don't accept that as an exuse considering it's accepting someone who refuses to accept someone else.

Edit: Accept is the word of the day.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

I will never accept a view that cause another to be considered 'inferior'. Whilst I am fairly open minded I don't agree with any view, be it religious, political, or other, that says, "I am better than such person because I am white/black/male/female/Christian/Muslim/Atheist."
Some of these things are a lifestyle choice, and people should respect that. Others are genetic traits and since we have no control over that you can't exactly blame someone for it.

Just because I accept other people's views, doesn't mean I have to accept the views of people who do not allow other people's views.

 

[ben---neb]

A truely tolerant society would be tolerant of intolerance.

 

[iamthehorde]

Who says I should be accepting of someone's views? I am accepting of the things that a person can't control, like skin colour, or sexuality. But their thoughts? Their actions? Oh no. I can be just as intolerant of them as they are intolerant of others. I will mock a person's faith, their music, their culture....because I don't agree. Often because it's dumb.


Example: I hate black urban culture. I think they need to pull their damned pants up, sell the bling and put the money towards learning proper english, quit killing eachother and generally stop revelling in ignorance. And it's infecting white people, giving the perception that ignorance and illiteracy is an acceptable trait because it "Keeps ya real!"

Now, was I intolerant of their skin? Was that a general hatred towards blacks? No. But their actions, their decisions....oh yeah, I'm intolerant like a muthafucka.

Oh yeah, and to try and prevent being reported for the above statements: White people! Stop becoming so damned priggish and intolerant of intolerance! I know you all are experiencing white-man's guilt over shit that was done before your great-grandparents were born, but seriously stop being the first to point out and condemn racial commentary like that will get you a little gold star in Al Sharpton's book. Oh, and could you please do something about country music. It's your own damn fault.

your view on what you describe as "black urban culture" is a good example how a dislike of a form of culture, whether you consider this culture worth the term or not, gets projected on the ethnic group which the general public considers to have spawned it. while your post implies you do not hate/dislike black people because of their skin, your comment on "black urban culture" shows that, although you seem to have only a narrow view on it, you dislike it for the things you want it to do or not to do, you dislike it because of the pants and the gangster cliches and you conclude it with the admittance that all this bullshit causes make you intolerant and that it´s okay! what´s wrong with you? i reckon you only know shit about this thing you call "black urban culture", as all you wrote sounds to me like the typical perception of someone who zaps through mtv and takes the trash they send for granted. the media tries constantly to create public images like this because it helps them to segregate customergroups to make better advertisement for them so they are more easily convinced to buy shit. if you come up in a discussion like this and want to be taken earnest with your thoughtful comment maybe you should be able to state your opinion with more than the leftovers of corporate media image campaigns. if you articulate your opinion so strongly, i wonder why you seem to be so manipulable.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Bleh.

Arguing about logical fallacies is going to cause people headaches no matter what.

racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination are forms of intolerance, but they also stem from one of the basic abilities of intelligent beings:

The clue is in the word itself: Discrimination -> To tell things apart.

It's source lies with the very ability to say for instance, that a tree and a car are not the same thing.
The problem that arises is one of inference and generalisation.

this tree has green leaves therefore all trees have green leaves

That sounds very abstract perhaps, but that is exactly what racism and discrimination arises from.

How can you accept the opinions of others when those very opinions are expressing are that they don't accept others...

Well, if you take your own 'acceptance' seriously, then yes. You would be forced to accept such perspectives.

I doubt however, that such a perspective would be all that wise.
Blind tolerance of everything and everyone would be as harmful as any arbitrary discrimination could be. (Should we just tolerate thieves, murderers, rapists... peadophiles? - Some of these people (especially the last group, ironically, given how much they are villified) might have what could be considered medical problems underlying their behaviour, but that doesn't mean we can just accept it.)

I don't believe in there being an objective 'right' and 'wrong', or even that objectivity is even possible at all really.
But saying you should tolerate everyone's beliefs is unfortunately, dangerous ground.

Too few people actually consider their own beliefs all that carefully.
When you make blind judgements and generalisations about things, bad consequences tend to follow.

I am tolerant of many things, but if you say something offensive about a whole group, wether it is people, cars, trees, cats, or whatever, then I expect you to at least be able to justify why you feel that way.

Then again, my worldview is not one of blind tolerance (as the OP's question basically relates to), but of avoiding assumptions.
This particular view isn't entirely plausible either, because any given thought has dozens if not hundreds of implicit assumptions in it, and questioning all of them on a day to day basis would be impossible.

The original question asks why racism (for instance) isn't typically included when people talk about being open-minded and not forcing their opinions on others.

The obvious first point is that few people really hold that view, even if they say they do.
To truly be open-minded requires that you have no implicit sense of objective morality.
Why?
Because if you have a definite sense of right and wrong that you consider indisputable, you cannot also be tolerant of anyone who has an opinion that you consider 'wrong'.
even if you consider it 'wrong' not to respect the opinion of others, if you hold this as an absolute truth, you cannot accept the views of anyone who doesn't agree on this point.

Very few people have such a flexible view on right and wrong.
Regardless of whether you believe in an objective sense of morality that is common to all people, or one created by circumstance,
You are bound to encounter people with other world-views than your own.
If they hold beliefs that you do not, you might find them strange.
If they believe it's acceptable to do things that you consider morally reprehensible, chances are you won't be very forgiving of them doing such things, or even expressing an opinion like that.

No-one is truly free from making moral judgments, hence no-one can possibly be truly tolerant of every possible belief.
Tolerance extends only as far as beliefs which you can accept as being either similar to your own, or more or less neutral compared to those you yourself hold.

 

[spuddyt]

Racism involves a factual inaccuracy as far as I am concerned: that a black man is inherently bound to be less intelligent/stronger bodied/more animalistic than a white man, when statistcs show this simply is not the case.

But as an opinion, what gives a man less right to hold it rather then another one?

I don't respect anyone's opinion when they blindly state something that simply isn't true.
Therefore, if you are wrong, you have less right to an opinion - QED.

 

[terraNivium]

Uhmm... because it would be kind of ironic, why should we be open minded to someones who is racist, when that peson clearly doesn't show open mindedness.

 

[ArcWinter]

Racism is in fact one of the very few incorrect opinions, being that:
1. There is no basis for it other than the racist wants to feel better about himself.
2. It causes violence that has no effect other than terror and death.
3. By definition, it does not exist, and it only exists socially (but it shouldn't).

So, no. It does not because racism is an incorrect opinion.

And again, subconscious racism is more akin to xenophobia and is completely natural. Just keep it inside your head please.

 

[Snotnarok]

Because opinions, as they are, usually can't be considered right or wrong. But saying something like that is just, without a doubt, unequivocally wrong.

How can one opinion be considered right/wrong but not another? Why would I be wrong for saying that black people are inferior to white people, but not for saying that the color blue is inferior to the color red?

Because colors are differences in light and black people are human beings with darker skin and a mind unlike a shade of light. There's a bit of a difference, just a bit. By a bit I mean it's bloody different.

They're both opinions, aren't they? What makes one more objectionable than the other?

Because a black person is the same as a white guy it's just a difference in skin color, it's a fact. You can judge all you want but there's no proof saying there's any difference besides some physical differences. You can think that a black guy/gal isn't as attractive, but to say a wavelength of light is the same as a human being is stupid, humans have self awareness and intelligence, light waves DO NOT.

Go ahead and say that kinda stuff outloud, I may not be so judgmental, I'd shrug it off as idiotic rants but someone else will certainly stomp your face in.

You didn't address the core issue. Why is one opinion acceptable, but another opinion isn't acceptable? Why should people tolerate opinion X and not opinion Y? Moreover, why should people be socially allowed to physically attack a person based on opinion X, but not on opinion Y?

I'm pretty sure I did, but I'll simplify for you since you can't seem to make sense of it.

The color red- a color wave length
A black man- a living breathing person who has every right to live freely as you do

There's a BIG difference in judging there seeing how one is a person who has a mind of his own and light doesn't have a mind at all.

Here's something more simple for you

Walking up to a video game console and saying it sucks isn't going to get anyones feelings hurt because it's an object with no emotions or mind of it's own, saying a man sucks because he was born with different skin is called offending a person with a MIND, HEART, and SOUL, and is segregating against an entire people who were born this way. You cannot hurt the device in any form because it doesn't have the makings TO feel, though the person DOES.

I'm really hoping this makes sense to you because this is beyond the point of breaking it down for you. If you can't tell the difference between hurting a persons feelings and yelling sounds at an object with no ability to hear/comprehend/feel then you should be talking to a doctor

So opinions are only acceptable if they don't hurt other peoples feelings? Isn't that a little tyrannical and completely subjective?

You asked why it was viewed as wrong, that's why it's viewed as wrong. Anything is subjective, but when the majority views it as wrong you can either

A-Accept it's not acceptable and keep quiet

B- Say what you think and get lots of angry people after you.

 

[Amoreyna]

Because opinions, as they are, usually can't be considered right or wrong. But saying something like that is just, without a doubt, unequivocally wrong.

So what? People with different religious views think ohers are wrong, people have differing views on abortion, when killing is okay, what rights animals and children should have etc. It's a view, an opinion on the world that you may not agree with but it is still within someone's right to state it.

When it crosses the line is when a. the rights of other's to live unfettered as per our nation's laws and b. when they go against the guidlines of what is deemed acceptable on private property. Most businesses will not tolerate racism from employees which is well within their rights.

And no, I don't support racism. As I said in another thread I find making an issue over the color of another's skin extremly stupid and pointless. To stand around and act superior to those who are racist will never solve the problem.

 

[JaredXE]

your view on what you describe as "black urban culture" is a good example how a dislike of a form of culture, whether you consider this culture worth the term or not, gets projected on the ethnic group which the general public considers to have spawned it. while your post implies you do not hate/dislike black people because of their skin, your comment on "black urban culture" shows that, although you seem to have only a narrow view on it, you dislike it for the things you want it to do or not to do, you dislike it because of the pants and the gangster cliches and you conclude it with the admittance that all this bullshit causes make you intolerant and that it´s okay! what´s wrong with you? i reckon you only know shit about this thing you call "black urban culture", as all you wrote sounds to me like the typical perception of someone who zaps through mtv and takes the trash they send for granted. the media tries constantly to create public images like this because it helps them to segregate customergroups to make better advertisement for them so they are more easily convinced to buy shit. if you come up in a discussion like this and want to be taken earnest with your thoughtful comment maybe you should be able to state your opinion with more than the leftovers of corporate media image campaigns. if you articulate your opinion so strongly, i wonder why you seem to be so manipulable.

No, I avoid MTV. My experience with the baggy pants, doo-rags, gold jewelry, spinners and lack of using understandable english has to do with actually living near neighborhoods WITH those people. Did I say ALL black people, or even all black people living in cities exhibited this behavior? No, I used the euphimism "Black Urban Culture" to describe what it really is: Ghetto Niggas. And you know the ones I'm talking about. Or perhaps you don't. You seemed to be placing the stereotype's origin and spread in the hands of the media. It's not. Sure, these young men and women buy into the culture in part BECAUSE of how it is portrayed in the media, no argument there, but in the words of Chris Rock: "When I'm going to the money machine tonight, I'm not looking behind me for the media...I'm looking for niggas. Mike Wallace ain't never took shit from me. Niggas have!"

Me too.

 

[similar.squirrel]

That's not the difference between right and wrong, though. That's a description of why certain people hold beliefs to be right and wrong. Big difference.

What?

That's completely the difference between right and wrong.

They're only abstract concepts which can be applied to a given action or belief.

Or a direction.

The difference between right and wrong is your opinion.

You can only have an opinion of you hold a belief about a given event or concept.

I disagree. I believe there is an objective right and wrong of some sort.

But how?

No matter what, someone will always disagree.

Even if it's only one person against billions, does it make them wrong just because they don't agree?

Terri Schiavo is a good example - many people said she should be allowed to die in peace, others said they couldn't make that decision for her.

So which is objectively right?

And how do you determine it?

Do you go with the majority?

What the lawyers and politicians say?

Do you form a committee to decide?

The simple fact is, right and wrong must be subjective because no two people are the same.

You're entitled to that opinion, sure. Freedom of speech.
And the co-workers are entitled to call you every derogatory name in their repertoire and get you fired.
Freedom of speech is nice like that. Allows you to spot the idiots who you don't want to be around.

So wait, why do the coworkers get more rights?

Of course they can say whatever they want about you.

But why are they allowed to get you fired?

What did they do that gives them the right to physically harm you (yes, I consider getting fired to be physical - money is necessary for physical sustenance)?

Is it because they're PC?

Think of it as getting a ban or a probation here.
If you act unpleasantly, you have every right to get booted.
People don't like gross idiocy, especially when it disrupts their work.

And I really don't follow your logic here...

You're saying that if I express an opinion that the mods don't agree with, they "have every right" to ban me?

That ties back to the whole issue - why does freedom of expression stop when you cross a certain line?

It does not stop.
But you take responsibility for your actions and bear the consequences after you cross that line. If you know that an opinion is going to be contentious, you bring it up at your own risk.
In an ideal world, nobody would care if you said something about black people being inferior to white.
But in an ideal world, nobody would act upon that sentiment.
It's a matter of risk-control.

 

[Kuhkren]

Maybe this topic would work better if some of the participants tried to remove personal bias from the opinion. Ideas don't have any inherent value, it is placed upon them by the individual. So comparing black people and white people and the idea of comparing red and blue are subjective, not definite. We only allow ourselves to envision the concept of incomparable between the two to justify cultural/personal beliefs. All in my opinion anyways.

That those issues are not subjective but rather are objective, and that this isn't simply about cultural/personal beliefs but is about some metaphysical truth is the 'opinion'--not the "personal bias"--of those posters, I think.

In other words, what you're calling 'personal bias' is people disagreeing with your opinion.

Nope, I was more referring to this post, which I should have quoted. Discussing how ideals carry the value we place on them through human interpretation. Might want to read it again, the throwing away of personal bias was for the ones who called it wrong as a fact. My bad for not clarifying.

Because opinions, as they are, usually can't be considered right or wrong. But saying something like that is just, without a doubt, unequivocally wrong.

 

[Anomynous 167]

Uhmm... because it would be kind of ironic, why should we be open minded to someones who is racist, when that peson clearly doesn't show open mindedness.

The best way to stop someone from being closed minded is to show open mindness your self. After all, if you can't show your self to negotiate then why should the straw men negotiate?[quote="JaredXE" post="18.134709.3040908] No, I used the euphimism "Black Urban Culture" to describe what it really is: Ghetto Niggas.quote]
Am I the only one that thinks of Hava Nagila when I read or here the word "Ghetto" or something else other wise steryotypically jewish?