Tolerance as the Ironically Oppressive Value System

[Gish]

You're pretty good at derailing your own threads. Maybe you should be more tolerant of the opinions of others and work on maintaining a coherent theme.

 

[Thalassa]

I love all the people who can't seem to stop themselves from talking to or about me, even though I never in any way initiated the conversation.

Something that I've found, interestingly, is that they're all male.

(except for TG, and well, she has reasonable grounds as my worthy mortal frenemy)

 

[Gish]

You posted a thread on a forum on the internet. OH MY, MALES ARE RESPONDING TO ME, THEY MUST HAVE IT OUT FOR ME

 

[Thalassa]

Yeah you know, most normal people are responding to this thread talking about the concept, not about me. Not you, Gish. Not you. And it's the second time you've done it in like three days.

Jesus H. Christ, Gish. Get a life.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Lol

What did the snail say on the turtles back?

Wheeee!

 

[1487610420]

You posted a thread on a forum on the internet. OH MY, MALES ARE RESPONDING TO ME, THEY MUST HAVE IT OUT FOR ME

 

[Viridian]

No. Not at all. And this is exactly what I'm talking about - if you're not a pacifist, you must be a fascist. Extremist thinking. Very simplistic.

Just curious - where do you lie on that spectrum?

Could you Fe a little bit louder?

Hard to compete with you, Marm. No one can say you lack conviction. umpyouup:

 

[Thalassa]

Just curious - where do you lie on that spectrum?

I consider myself a political moderate. I think war is a pragmatic and necessary evil, and that people have a right to maintain their own culture in their own nation, and shouldn't be asked to make outlandish exceptions for the New World Order or Globalism, which reduces culture to a pathetic shared interest in the same corporations. On the other hand, I think it's good for people to have peaceful relations with other nations and cultures, and that diplomacy should always be employed as a strategy before war. I think people should be free to immigrate wherever they choose, but be expected to assimilate to a degree. I actually am appalled that anyone thinks it's okay to move to France, for example, and not respect their culture and speak French, etc. I would never do such a thing, and I think it's blatant ...well it's pretty much a form of invasion of another nation's culture to think you can go there and TAKE OVER with your own culture. There's a line between being able to keep your own history, and just thinking you can waltz in and move the furniture around in your host's house.

I don't include the U.S. in this *as much* because we are built on immigration and multi-culturalism as a nation, but I still apply some of the same pragmatic standards to this country as well involving self-defense, etc.

I also, think, for example, that private institutions should be allowed to make their own rules, within reason - like religious institutions shouldn't be mandated by the government to do this or that that violates their religion, like for example a Christian school shouldn't be expected to run with the same specifications as a public school in terms of whom they hire and what they tolerate.

There of course has to be a basic framework for what is unacceptable (murder, rape, child abuse, etc.) but I think private interests should be allowed to maintain their own morality, as long as belonging to that private interest is voluntary.

I believe in capitalism without corporatism, and personal responsibility without preposterous unreasonable cruelty, and I think any all corporate welfare should end, I think the government really needs to get out of bed with big business.

Hard to compete with you, Marm. No one can say you lack conviction. umpyouup:

Just kidding.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Does anyone else see the irony of this person "advising" me to stop engaging in arguments with people whilst repeatedly trying to personally engage me, thereby pulling himself into a conflict?

Oh Internet.

It isn't ironic. You do have a choice, Marmie. You don't have to engage them back. You bite every time.
The irony here is you bring up tolerance by oppression, while trying to oppress those that display intolerance of you.
Please take it back a notch or two, it was a interesting subject you brought up.

 

[Viridian]

I consider myself a political moderate. I think war is a pragmatic and necessary evil, and that people have a right to maintain their own culture in their own nation, and shouldn't be asked to make outlandish exceptions for the New World Order or Globalism, which reduces culture to a pathetic shared interest in the same corporations. On the other hand, I think it's good for people to have peaceful relations with other nations and cultures, and that diplomacy should always be employed as a strategy before war. I think people should be free to immigrate wherever they choose, but be expected to assimilate to a degree. I actually am appalled that anyone thinks it's okay to move to France, for example, and not respect their culture and speak French, etc. I would never do such a thing, and I think it's blatant ...well it's pretty much a form of invasion of another nation's culture to think you can go there and TAKE OVER with your own culture. There's a line between being able to keep your own history, and just thinking you can waltz in and move the furniture around in your host's house.

I don't include the U.S. in this *as much* because we are built on immigration and multi-culturalism as a nation, but I still apply some of the same pragmatic standards to this country as well involving self-defense, etc.

I also, think, for example, that private institutions should be allowed to make their own rules, within reason - like religious institutions shouldn't be mandated by the government to do this or that that violates their religion, like for example a Christian school shouldn't be expected to run with the same specifications as a public school in terms of whom they hire and what they tolerate.

There of course has to be a basic framework for what is unacceptable (murder, rape, child abuse, etc.) but I think private interests should be allowed to maintain their own morality, as long as belonging to that private interest is voluntary.

I believe in capitalism without corporatism, and personal responsibility without preposterous unreasonable cruelty, and I think any all corporate welfare should end, I think the government really needs to get out of bed with big business.

So, basically, while rejecting relativism, you favor the mosaic model over the "melting pot" one?

Just kidding.

It was a compliment! Honest!

 

[Thalassa]

It isn't ironic. You do have a choice, Marmie. You don't have to engage them back. You bite every time.
The irony here is you bring up tolerance by oppression, while trying to oppress those that display intolerance of you.

But I'm not preaching almighty tolerance, I admit to being intolerant of certain things, and even proud of my judgments. So there's no irony in that.

Please take it back a notch or two, it was a interesting subject you brought up.

Take what back a notch or two? Don't personally engage me about my behavior when I'm not talking to you.

 

[Gish]

I'm pretty certain she was just suggesting that you return to the more interesting topic you had started, as in, take a few steps back.

 

[Thalassa]

[MENTION=1592]Gish[/MENTION] oh you mean that interesting subject you wanted to piss all over, troll?

 

[Gish]

[MENTION=1592]Gish[/MENTION] oh you mean that interesting subject you wanted to piss all over, troll?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I was just following the pace you set with the first response you posted to your own thread.

I think Qlip, Orangey, and Coriolis all made very strong points at various spots in this thread but you chose to ignore them and instead pick whatever fight you saw come over the horizon. Even when Jennifer made an attempt at providing some input your first response was to insult her.

I only pissed where you had placed the toilet, sunshine.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Tolerance is not ironic. Oppressive tolerance? Not that either. I mean shouldn't tolerance be allowed to judge? When you say tolerance you automatically create a boundary, and tolerance isn't the space in-between the two points, but is the end of itself. That space is filled with patience and reasoning.

Societies aren't correct just because they have values, because they don't all have reasoning. Some may say that reasoning isn't the only way to decide what is correct, but how does a value ever reason, or compromise with a different value? Where else can you turn, but reasoning?

No high-horse. Anyone who has the capability of reasoning correctly can reason correctly.

It says something about reality......... Whatever that may be I can't quite tell. I can tell you that it seems tolerance is another distraction, or a band-aid.

What problem? WE'RE TOLERANT!

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Tolerance is not ironic. Oppressive tolerance? Not that either. I mean shouldn't tolerance be allowed to judge? When you say tolerance you automatically create a boundary, and tolerance isn't the space in-between the two points, but is the end of itself. That space is filled with patience and reasoning.

Societies aren't correct just because they have values, because they don't all have reasoning. Some may say that reasoning isn't the only way to decide what is correct, but how does a value ever reason, or compromise with a different value? Where else can you turn, but reasoning?

No high-horse. Anyone who has the capability of reasoning correctly can reason correctly.

It says something about reality......... Whatever that may be I can't quite tell. I can tell you that it seems tolerance is another distraction, or a band-aid.

What problem? WE'RE TOLERANT!

 

[Orangey]

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.

In this case, tolerance is a means to an end, not the end itself. That's the problem with the term, and I think that's the point of this thread; that tolerance in and of itself is too slippery a concept to serve as a normative value by which to evaluate specific behaviors, and when it is used that way, it becomes a (frankly, rather despicable) topos. A rhetorical ploy.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I was just following the pace you set with the first response you posted to your own thread.

I think Qlip, Orangey, and Coriolis all made very strong points at various spots in this thread but you chose to ignore them and instead pick whatever fight you saw come over the horizon. Even when Jennifer made an attempt at providing some input your first response was to insult her.

I only pissed where you had placed the toilet, sunshine.

actually, boy wonder, I repped orangey saying her post was great, and almost publicly called it the best post in thread, but decided I didn't want to disrespect corolis (who I also thanked) or lexicon, whose post I also respected. I don't single out people I have no reason to tangle with, and your frankly fuckin retarded assumption that I ignored the people you mentioned says more about you than it does about me. In fact I never even responded to your first post, only when you joined the other obsessed fan in the thread in personally attacking me. So don't blame me for your own repeated vile behavior, no one is forcing you to follow me around the forum making half-assed mostly ignorant critiques of my person

ETA: wait didn't I even talk to qlip and corolis publicly? And I was joking around with Jennifer. Your perceptions are pretty warped gish, I don't even know where you're getting this shit now.

 

[Gish]

Blah blah typo blah

You seem irate, have you tried Bikram yoga before?

I think the main issue is just that tolerance has become a buzzword and is thrown around so much that it loses any value as a word in a "cry wolf" sense. However, I don't think the actual definition of tolerance implies a lack of backbone or free will, more just "don't be a bigoted asshole".

 

[Thalassa]

In this case, tolerance is a means to an end, not the end itself. That's the problem with the term, and I think that's the point of this thread; that tolerance in and of itself is too slippery a concept to serve as a normative value by which to evaluate specific behaviors, and when it is used that way, it becomes a (frankly, rather despicable) topos. A rhetorical ploy.

yes, exactly, its tolerance as an end unto itself which is the problem, rather than it being a means to an end, like wealth and progress seeming to become ends unto themselves when they also should only be means to an end

you put this so eloquently orangey, more than I could, thank you