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

[seyirci]

Being tolerant sort of ends at being tolerant of intolerance, because to try take it beyond that is demonstrably stupid.

 

[JaredXE]

What about "I believe the sky is blue"?

But...the sky ISN'T blue. It's black, with little twinklings of lights.

 

[rasputin310]

It doen't include racism until you point that out/ask

 

[Ninja_X]

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.

WoW nice.

Especially that bit about "black urban culture".

 

[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.

 

[similar.squirrel]

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.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

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?

 

[Finnboghi]

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?

In that case, someone who boycotts a certain merchant is physically harming them. The issue here is more about your definition of what constitutes physical harm than about 'rights'.

...You missed the point.

The simple fact of the matter is;

Person expresses their beliefs.
Coworker counters with expression of their beliefs.
Coworker gets Person fired for not sharing said beliefs.

How is that fair?

I didn't miss your point, you're just changing your point from the narrow one of "physical harm" to the more general idea of 'some sort of undefined harm that it is unfair to inflict'.

I'm not saying it's fair or not--I'm saying that the idea of "rights" and "harm" are bound up in each other--like you're saying now, your argument is that it's not fair for someone to lose a job over certain (I assume you mean non-work related) beliefs.

...I'm seeing less and less how we disagree on this matter.

Regardless of whether being fired is considered physical harm, or some other non-desrcript form of harm, it is still harm.

My point is not what kind of harm is being inflicted - it's that harm is being inflicted.

If we were to tone it waaaaaaaaaaay down and take two coworkers who prefer dogs and cats, the distinction becomes clearer;

If I say I prefer cats, and my coworker prefers dogs, and he gets me fired for preferring cats, then he has violated my right to free speech, and has harmed me.

If we were to bring it back to the current level, the distinction is there;

If I say caucasians are better, and my coworker says asians are better, and I get fired for thinking white people are superior, then my right to express my belief has been violated once again.

That is not to say I am racist against asians - being in computer science, it is required that half my friends are asian and half are caucasian.

 

[Halceon]

This is the most cheerful fallacy of all. Every opinion should be tolerated... except those that disagree with the previous statement.
I always have a laugh when people try telling me to be more accepting.

 

[Skeleon]

Um, you're the one who said "Yet this is the very basis of democracy and when a person disregards that, they disregard democarcy itself and have no place in politics." If you want to change it to something like "anyone who disregards that NOW" or something okay, but I'm only working with the ideas you've expressed to me.

Well, I thought it was a given that I was talking about the present since the topic of this thread is about racism in the present but whatever.

 

[Finnboghi]

This is the most cheerful fallacy of all. Every opinion should be tolerated... except those that disagree with the previous statement.
I always have a laugh when people try telling me to be more accepting.

Heh, I was waiting for someone to comment on the irony.

Although, in our defence, each must fully express their opinion before an accepting balance can be reached.

Or everyone storms off in an angry tuff.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

The problem is that "Hitler made me happy" isn't an opinion it's a statement of fact. It has no bearing on if he's right or wrong.

I think you're kinda missing my point, but let me say this--you can turn "black people...should be made into slaves" into a statement of fact just by rearranging the words into "black people do not possess the same freedoms as other people."

Yes, arrangements of words matter. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that "black people should be made into slaves" is still an opinion and, as such, cannot be literally wrong. It can be shunned, it can be discouraged, it can be socially unacceptable, but it's not wrong.

In a very technical sense. Thing is, why would someone have that opinion if they did not also hold the fact that "black people have less rights" to be the case?

A person can believe that white people should be made into slaves without believing that white people are inferior. All it means is that they believe it, probably because they're not a white person and are not effected by the opinion. It has nothing to do with thoughts of a factual nature or anything based upon reality.

Yeah, but then there's the flaw in their belief in that they believe things without even holding the required facts to be true. That's a special case.

My experience with people talking about different topics leads me to believe it's not that special. It certainly isn't unique and it damn sure ain't rare. It's probably the most common thing I've ever seen when debates erupt about whatever issue. People not thinking things through to their logical conclusion is the reason I hate discussing politics.

This is the very problem people run into every time they talk about religion. It's all subjective, it's all guesswork, it's all opinion. Since no one knows the FACTS, people BELIEVE. They don't have to believe for any reason other than it makes them feel better. There need not be any underlying thought process.

Sure--and when religion turns into a belief about other people, like 'convert or die' we treat it the same as racism.

It's far too late for me to get into any kind of debate with something as explosive as religion. I'm sorry I mentioned it, forget I said anything.

A fact isn't a belief. A fact is something that is. As in: the sky IS blue. A belief, on the other hand, is a statement that is not fact, but thought to be true. As in: I believe white people are inferior to black people.

What about "I believe the sky is blue"?

See the issue now? Sure you can say an opinion is a statement thought to be true, but in a case like this, it's thought to be true because the people holds a certain fact to be true as well.

A person can have an opinion on a fact. This doesn't change the individual fact, nor the individual opinion. The opinion is not wrong, the fact is wrong. Or right, however you want it.

Right, but your terminology is different from that of other people then, and it can all be explained by you substituting "fact" in certain cases where people say "opinion."

It's just a vocabulary issue.

Like I said before, sentence structure matters. Terminology matters. However, my problem isn't so much with semantics as it is with the basic underlying thought process brought out by the vocabulary.

Opinions, no matter how flagrantly aggravating it might be, cannot be regarded as wrong.

 

[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

 

[Morti]

@The "skin tone" vs "favourite colour" argument.

The problem there is that you're comparing two diferent types of opinion there.

"Black people are inferior to white." Can be tested to be proved right or wrong. This means that you can provide a cohesive argument to backup your opinion or to invalidate it.

"I prefer blue over red." Is an emotional opinion. You can't argue it either way. These are the types of opinions that should be protected as they are down to the sole discretion of the believer.

A closer comparison of beliefs would be:

"I believe black people are inferior to white."
and
"I believe the sky is red."

or

"I find black people unatractive."
and
"My favourite colour is blue."