Tolerance as the Ironically Oppressive Value System

[Thalassa]

Interesting.

Resonates yes, although I would say that most of the people who state an aversion to judgement or opinions in favour of tolerance are often just unconscious of how judgemental they are, its often the "wrong sort" of judgement they're opposed to as opposed to judgements per se.

Precisely. They're very judgmental people themselves, sometimes. I've even had conversations on other forums where suggesting ideas outside of the liberal box were looked at as fascist...which struck me as the height of irony that I could be a web site of Jew bashing, Christian bashing, white-people-bashing...but if I suggested that, for example, an article on National Socialism in Russia was an enlightening way of looking at a culture, and suggesting that European people do - in fact - have a right to preserve their own culture (as long as they aren't tormenting or invading people of other nations) ...that I was a fascist. Me. Okay, yeah sure I'm the fascist. Apparently I'm just not judging the "right" thing. I should just go hate Jews and everyone will smile at me.

Or conversely, people insisting that I accept something that I find unacceptable, and yes I'll speak out against it, and I won't be tolerant of it. Why should I be? If I feel that a certain philosophy is inherently destructive why wouldn't I speak out negatively against it? As long as I don't go into anybody's house or private space and voice these opinions, and as long as I'm voicing them publicly, WHO GIVES A FUCK. No, I don't have to tolerate it quietly. I won't.

It's not even a matter of "sensing when" or "how" to voice one's own opinion's, because I have a perfect sense of that...IN REAL LIFE. In real life, I mainly mind my own business or avoid people I strongly disagree with, unless I think something truly destructive is going on. I don't see why I have to act that way on-line, why I should make myself as small and sheep-like as possible, in a medium that is a free flowing exchange of ideas, where someone might VOLUNTARILY listen and agree with me (note that I'm not screaming at them, or knocking on their door, or emailing them privately with my own beliefs).

 

[UniqueMixture]

No marmie, I am not passive aggressive. I can tell you you are full of shit to your face if you wish : D lol.

I just, you know, like to feel good not be antagonistic on subjects I don't care much about. Because believe it or not my ego is not consumed with having to prove other people wrong. You know, because if you actually believe what you say is true for you, you don't really give a fuck about what other people say or do.

 

[Thalassa]

No marmie, I am not passive aggressive. I can tell you you are full of shit to your face if you wish : D lol.

I just, you know, like to feel good not be antagonistic on subjects I don't care much about. Because believe it or not my ego is not consumed with having to prove other people wrong. You know, because if you actually believe what you say is true for you, you don't really give a fuck about what other people say or do.

Yes, you asked a question and then followed it with a statement, then denied you had made your question rhetorical by following it with a statement.

I'm through with you.

 

[Thalassa]

Providing the person isn't being self-righteous about it, I'm willing to hear (and consider) pretty much any opinion.

*This post is not a passive-agressive remark. Thanks.

Yeah I didn't think it was, but thanks for clarifying all the same, INTP.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Kthxbai : ) )

 

[Thalassa]

It's obvious we need to send you to compliance, er, I mean, sensitivity training Marmie.

That's the funniest thing I've seen all day.

 

[Not_Me]

I just think this trend toward over-tolerance is unhealthy. There's a difference between being open-minded enough to live and let live, and being so open-minded that you become malleable, stupid, or accepting of things to the point of passivity.

Yes, I think tolerance is not a virtue in itself. I consider fairness to be the highest principle. Tolerating unfairness would be a vice.

 

[Gish]

Lets all be more tolerant of intolerance.

 

[Totenkindly]

Could you Fe a little bit louder?

Could you Fi a little bit softer?

 

[Thalassa]

Could you Fi a little bit softer?

NO.

 

[Orangey]

The concepts of tolerance/intolerance and closed/open-mindedness are meaningless, so if anybody ever employs them in conversation or argument, it is merely a (not very clever or cunning) tactic to discredit their opponent. It is nothing more than a weak ethos attack.

It is best to either ignore it or explain to the person exactly why they're stupid for trying that shit.

 

[Coriolis]

Tolerance is very popular, even mandatory, in our society today. Of course up unto a point that is good, because it means that people of varying races, sexual orientations, religious creeds and life philosophies are free to live without persecution (or in theory should be).

I just think this trend toward over-tolerance is unhealthy. There's a difference between being open-minded enough to live and let live, and being so open-minded that you become malleable, stupid, or accepting of things to the point of passivity.

Tolerance is not the same as acceptance or agreement. Open-mindedness similarly requires a willingness only to consider different ideas. Like the famous quote from Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.". Blind, uncritical acceptance of everything that comes your way is not tolerance, it is spinelessness or gullibility.

Tolerance means only "live and let live", as you put it, like the highlighted above. If after entertaining an unfamiliar idea we find it sensible or appealing, we can move from tolerance to agreement, acceptance, or even appreciation.

 

[Totenkindly]

NO.

That goes for me too.

 

[Thalassa]

That goes for me too.

WEAR THOSE VALUES PROUDLY SISTER.

 

[Thalassa]

Tolerance is not the same as acceptance or agreement. Open-mindedness similarly requires a willingness only to consider different ideas. Like the famous quote from Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.". Blind, uncritical acceptance of everything that comes your way is not tolerance, it is spinelessness or gullibility.

Tolerance means only "live and let live", as you put it, like the highlighted above. If after entertaining an unfamiliar idea we find it sensible or appealing, we can move from tolerance to agreement, acceptance, or even appreciation.

Yes but I've entertained certain ideas long before yet another person brings up those ridiculous regurgitated ideas yet again, and given them a fair shake, before I already came to my own sound judgments. I mean, just because something is new to you, or just because I don't happen to agree with it, doesn't mean that I didn't already try to tolerate it and learn about it at some point in the past, or that possibly I even understand more about that idea than the person claiming to admire it, and that's why I hate it.

 

[Jaguar]

That goes for me too.

Who are you?

 

[Totenkindly]

WEAR THOSE VALUES PROUDLY SISTER.

!!!! I'm not gonna let my values about restraining my values be restrained !!!

Who are you?

I'M HERE AND I'M FI'ING MY FE'ING DAMMIT AND NO ONE IS GONNA STOP ME!!!

... wait... am I over-dominating the threa.... NO DAMMIT I AM GONNA KEEP MY VOICE!!!!!

 

[UniqueMixture]

What specifically is this about anyway? What do you believe others are trying to "force you" to tolerate? With Lark it is the gays. What's your thing?

 

[Coriolis]

Yes but I've entertained certain ideas long before yet another person brings up those ridiculous regurgitated ideas yet again, and given them a fair shake, before I already came to my own sound judgments. I mean, just because something is new to you, or just because I don't happen to agree with it, doesn't mean that I didn't already try to tolerate it and learn about it at some point in the past, or that possibly I even understand more about that idea than the person claiming to admire it, and that's why I hate it.

Then you're done. Unless someone raises new points that you have not previously considered, tolerance does not obligate you to keep revisiting the same ground. You have determined your views; anyone pushy at this point is being intolerant of YOU. There is also the distinction between tolerance of ideas and people. Something akin to the sentiment often attributed to Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.".

 

[Thalassa]

What specifically is this about anyway? What do you believe others are trying to "force you" to tolerate? With Lark it is the gays. What's your thing?

It's not just me. I've noticed this trend in society, and obviously so have other people in this thread, what is being referred to as the fascism of the liberals, for starters, the politically correct police, and this can extend to other discussions about ideas, like the attitude if you have standards and you say something is sub par then you're attacking a person just because they believe it or like it.

I thought you were leaving anyway. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.