What does being "tolerant" mean accepting bigotry?

[Vausch]

It doesn't. The thing is people that say that don't seem to understand that free speech does have some specific limits, and that their right to free speech does not give them the right to not be criticised or call out on their bullsh*t.

 

[Redd the Sock]

The flaw in the formula is that those you want to criticize see themselves in the moral right. "Homosexuality is amoral. Women are abandoning their children to go work. Mixing the races is wrong." All bullshit I don't agree with, but also things we might not have learned were bullshit had people not stood up to challenge the accepted morality. When we're the oppressed, we have no problems with using freedoms of speech and belief to challenge the popular worldview with our own. Now that things are more in our favor however, now we don't want our beliefs challenged by others that either think the old way was better, or see some new problem. "we wanted to say what was moral and not moral, and now who the hell are you to challenge our worldview?" And that "moral certainty" rationalizes soft censorship tactics like shunning, financial boycotts, discrimination, harassment, and other things we called "absolutely wrong" when happening to us, but seem to think are okay now.

Yeah there are a lot of bad opinions out there, but I've seen legitimate criticisms ignored under various -isms as people can't accept the possibility we haven't hit a moral sweet spot that never needs to change. We wanted others to accept a challenge to their worldview. We have to extend the same consideration.

 

[Strazdas]

Again, this is where you lose most Europeans.

We don't think this is "thought control". It's just making sure that we don't have to go through a lot of stupid legal work to hinder any uprising Hitler or Mussolini.

You can't use US ultimate logic in this. There is a greyscale to liberty and we'll gladly give up stuff we don't even use.

SInce i actually am European i call bull. People do think its stupid rule created because "omg evil so we msut ban it" thinking.
Classifying something as hate speech wont stop uprising of Hitler or Mussolini. Hitler was democratically elected.
Classifiying something as ahte speech opens up the door to classify, for example, games as hate speech, because majority is glad to give it up and dont use it anyway, right. This kind of thinking is sort of what lead to the problem in the first place. when you start considering some people as lesser for their opinion you end up with "jews are bellow humans".

No it's actually even worse. It is pushing those groups to use deception. They moderate their speech but not because their beliefs have changed but to avoid the PC police. And the negative consequence of that is that they end up getting the support of more moderate people who wouldn't support them when they were being straight to the point. You just need to look at the what Marine Lepen did with the Front National.

Fair point of another side of the coin. I do remmeber plenty of support for the norwegian shooter (forgot the name) as well fueled by moderate speeches of "Evil imigrants" (except they didnt call them evil but instead used deception, but the gist of it was still evil imigrants).

 

[MrFalconfly]

SInce i actually am European i call bull. People do think its stupid rule created because "omg evil so we msut ban it" thinking.
Classifying something as hate speech wont stop uprising of Hitler or Mussolini. Hitler was democratically elected.
Classifiying something as ahte speech opens up the door to classify, for example, games as hate speech, because majority is glad to give it up and dont use it anyway, right. This kind of thinking is sort of what lead to the problem in the first place. when you start considering some people as lesser for their opinion you end up with "jews are bellow humans".

I give up.

I however will not neither accept nor be tolerant of people who'd like a repeat of some of humanity's darkest moments. In my eyes they have forfeited any, and I mean ANY, right for themselves to utter their inane mutterings of "master-races" or other religiously or otherwise motivated antagonism.

 

[Strazdas]

SInce i actually am European i call bull. People do think its stupid rule created because "omg evil so we msut ban it" thinking.
Classifying something as hate speech wont stop uprising of Hitler or Mussolini. Hitler was democratically elected.
Classifiying something as ahte speech opens up the door to classify, for example, games as hate speech, because majority is glad to give it up and dont use it anyway, right. This kind of thinking is sort of what lead to the problem in the first place. when you start considering some people as lesser for their opinion you end up with "jews are bellow humans".

I give up.

I however will not neither accept nor be tolerant of people who'd like a repeat of some of humanity's darkest moments. In my eyes they have forfeited any, and I mean ANY, right for themselves to utter their inane mutterings of "master-races" or other religiously or otherwise motivated antagonism.

Which is your opinion, which you can have, because there is a thing called free speech. However, as you do not want to allow others to have their opinions, what would happen if we too your opinion as well?
Im sure you wouldn't like if someone just told you to "Shut you your stupid you have no rights". becasue thats exactly what your doing to them.

 

[Vegosiux]

I don't get why a person who accepts that all people are equal also has to accept those who think that black people are sub-human. And why should I? Why should I accept the neo-nazis, the klansmen, and the westboro baptist churches of the world?

If we're talking "accept" as in "acknowledge the existance of", then you should totally "accept" them. Because they exist, that's a fact which you need to accept.

If we're talking "accept" as in "condone and/or support their perspectives", well, in that case nobody's telling you you should do that, I hope.

The issue is, it seems to me at least, this fallacious logic that "accepting" something is a synonym for "agreeing with" something. To me it's more like, "accepting" something means saying "Yup, that exists[footnote]Or "Yup, that happened.[/footnote]. But it's still shit, so let's do something about it." Not "Yeah, I'm cool with that".

Semantics, I know, but that's how I see it.

Should I not call out their vile shit as vile shit, and let them know that they are wrong for holding such views? I mean, not all views are created equal. Some of them are awful, and need to be addressed.

There's no "should" in that, you do what you can do, out of what you feel needs to be done. What you do is not up to other people to decide.

In the end, it all falls down to several factors, motivations, preparedness to put yourself into a more visible position, and last but not least, your other commitments in life taking up your time.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Which is your opinion, which you can have, because there is a thing called free speech. However, as you do not want to allow others to have their opinions, what would happen if we too your opinion as well?
Im sure you wouldn't like if someone just told you to "Shut you your stupid you have no rights". becasue thats exactly what your doing to them.

Except we don't really have ultimate free speech. Libel, Slander. There are rules for what's acceptable. I don't see how we can't just lob "fucking fags should be purged" into one of those categories.

 

[Strazdas]

Which is your opinion, which you can have, because there is a thing called free speech. However, as you do not want to allow others to have their opinions, what would happen if we too your opinion as well?
Im sure you wouldn't like if someone just told you to "Shut you your stupid you have no rights". becasue thats exactly what your doing to them.

Except we don't really have ultimate free speech. Libel, Slander. There are rules for what's acceptable. I don't see how we can't just lob "fucking fags should be purged" into one of those categories.

There is a saying, your rights end where other persons begins. If your speech causes harm to others, you are doing a crime. If it does not, then you are not. Saying that "i dont like black people" does not cause them harm, it does however make you a racist. Two are not the same.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Which is your opinion, which you can have, because there is a thing called free speech. However, as you do not want to allow others to have their opinions, what would happen if we too your opinion as well?
Im sure you wouldn't like if someone just told you to "Shut you your stupid you have no rights". becasue thats exactly what your doing to them.

Except we don't really have ultimate free speech. Libel, Slander. There are rules for what's acceptable. I don't see how we can't just lob "fucking fags should be purged" into one of those categories.

There is a saying, your rights end where other persons begins. If your speech causes harm to others, you are doing a crime. If it does not, then you are not. Saying that "i dont like black people" does not cause them harm, it does however make you a racist. Two are not the same.

EXACTLY!!!

I mean it can't be that hard.

People can't just wave "freedom of speech" or "1st amendment" around as "Get out of jail free" cards when people call them out on it.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

By definition, yes. In order to be tolerant you must not yourself be bigoted. In one of life's fun recursions, confronting a bigot for being a bigot necessarily makes you a bigot yourself.

Not in the least bit. If you loosen it so ridiculously then anyone's a bigot who doesn't tolerate murder. You say 'by definition', but you provide no definition. It's kind of like the people who say 'technical' when it's really not.

I did not provide the definition because you have, at your fingertips, a comprehensive English dictionary. Still, a <a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigoted?s=t>bigot is defined as a person who is intolerant of other ideas. Confronting a bigot over their position on an issue inherently shows a desire to alter their position on the subject or, in other words, shows intolerance. Given that you are being intolerant of an idea, you arrive neatly at a position where you, by confronting a bigot, meet the dictionary definition of bigotry.

That isn't to say that you'd somehow be wrong for confronting a bigot - simply that you need a better reason to do so than "They're a bigot". As luck would have it, the actual tested extent of freedom of speech and the press tends to follow this notion. So long as the position you espouse does not harm another person, you are within your legal right to express that idea. And even then there is lots of grey area - it is, for example, generally legal to harm another through the expression of an idea so long as it is true.

Or, to put it another way, it does not show any real nobility of character if you merely tolerate the expression of an idea you agree with; such nobility requires you also tolerate ideas that conflict with your own.

The way to be free of that nonsense is to say I'm not tolerant for the sake of tolerance. I'm tolerant of X for so and so reasons(so and so reasons usually being along the lines of "Well there's nothing I can see that's actually wrong with it"). Those do not apply to Y(generally because Y is harmful in some manner to people for no good reason). Well at least it would get them to stop if they actually based it off of anything you said or did, or logic at all, as opposed to using this argument as a convenient excuse.

'Tolerant' seems silly as a general word. You're tolerant of specific things, not just tolerant in general.

That doesn't work since what you actually are attempting to do is subvert the definition of the word <a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerate?s=t>tolerant.

Now, what you espouse certainly approaches how people actually operate in the real world, but that does not undermine the simple fact that the moment you become intolerant (that is, you become unwilling to accept an idea that you disagree with), that places you squarely into the territory of a bigot. I agree that there are ideas where bigotry is socially acceptable - it's just that following such a course still leaves you as a bigot yourself. As such, unless your argument against the position is stronger than "I won't tolerate your intolerance", you're probably just as well served letting that particular dog lie. Intolerance is no more likely to change intolerance because of your righteous indignation than it is because of the other persons.

 

[Strazdas]

EXACTLY!!!

I mean it can't be that hard.

People can't just wave "freedom of speech" or "1st amendment" around as "Get out of jail free" cards when people call them out on it.

I dont think you understand what i am trying to say. People have a right to free speech. that means they have a right to have any opinion they want and express it. they however cant do any action that harms others, which libel is. However it works both ways, and same as a NeoNazi cant encourage forceful shut up of your view, you cant encourage forceful shut up of theirs. Instead what you have with hate speech category is that one side is alowed free speech, while the other side isnt, making it a double standard.
Noone is saying its get out of jail free card, it is however a thing that allows you to have an opinion even if it does not coicide with majority. People can call them out on it. however they must do it in civilized matter. "your point is wrong because X" is ok, "omg shut up you nazi" is not.

 

[KissingSunlight]

The problem with having an "I Hate Bigots!" philosophy is that it's a cheap way of ignoring the other points of view of an issue. If you come across someone who disagree with you, but you are not clever enough to counter that person's rational argument. All you do is to call them a "bigot" and ignore them. I've seen this happen way too many times online.

The problem with having this attitude in real life. A person is more complex than a personal opinion on social issues. For example, what if you knew someone who was homophobic, but volunteers regularly to help the homeless. Is that person evil (and deserves to be hated), because that person have anti-gay opinions?

There is a big difference between disagreeing with a bigot and hating them.