• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Tolerance as the Ironically Oppressive Value System

Fleeting

New member
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
53
MBTI Type
ENTP
As human beings, we're biologically inclined to make judgments, no matter what our type is, or who we are. We categorize things, and people, in order to remember and understand them better. Some people do this without even thinking about it. Some people probably secretly feel badly for doing it.

Much of stereotyping is simply due to environmental factors.

If you were raised from childhood in a nude tribe, you would naturally adapt. These individuals wouldn't leer at women, or even think twice about it. Then, let's take one of the female teenagers from one of these tribes, and place them in an American classroom. Of course, she comes to class topless.

Chaos!

The teacher would take action and make sure that the perpetrator was clothed immediately. The 'perpetrator' wouldn't understand why they were being clothed. They would attempt to remove the clothing, and be reprimanded. When explained why, they might not understand. ''Modesty? What is modesty? Why do I have to put this on? It itches, I don't understand.'' The teacher is frustrated, but adamant. Maybe she comes to class with holes cut out of her top the next day. But, eventually, she changes, and comes to have a superficial understanding of it.

People are naturally self-absorbed and intolerant. Often, when judgments are made on a cultural basis, they are emotionally biased judgments. Thinking about why you know what you know is necessary.

I myself am biased, because I go through life adapting. Where I stand will change based upon new information, new environments and new understanding.

I don't even think of the word, ''tolerant'' in an everyday context anymore. In every new situation, I think: ''Does it make sense?'' And, ''What do I need to do to understand this?''

Categorizing a group of individuals based upon appearance doesn't make sense. Each one is different, has different ideas, knowledge and a different perspective and environment that they have adapted out of.

Being cautious based upon preliminary data does make sense, but information when it comes to people is often unpredictable. That's why it's important to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Critical thinking.
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Take what back a notch or two? Don't personally engage me about my behavior when I'm not talking to you.

Why the tone? It was meant with the best of intentions, as I was interested in the topic, and interested in what you had to say, without your histrionics, which were threatening drown out the debate.

Don't bother replying to this, I have you on ignore as you are primed for a fight. It's shame because you are good value when you don't have that huge chip on your shoulder.

At least you are entertaining in this mood, I'll give that.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yes, it's the hypocrisy that bugs me, the irony of it all, that "tolerance" has become the "right" thing to believe instead of "man and woman only should be married" or "blacks and whites should stay apart." It sounds good on the surface, that "tolerance" has become the "right" but the fact is that underneath this facade of "tolerance" is still intolerance toward things they don't agree with . . .
Tolerance does not mean changing your personal beliefs. It does mean coexisting peacefully with people whose beliefs are different. In other words, treating the gay couple next door with courtesy and fairness even if you disagree with gay unions. We cannot legislate or force our beliefs on others, we can only place requirements on actions. Sometimes beliefs follow actions, as when someone comes to see gay relationships in a different light after gaining more direct experience with gay couples. This can only evolve on its own, though.

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.
In principle I agree. The sticking point is just how far this basic framework reaches. What laws must the private institutions hold to? Child labor restrictions? No racial/gender/nationality/gay discrimination? OSHA safety rules? Building codes? Must they pay minimum wage, or even deduct taxes/FICA contributions? Especially when it comes to religious organizations, it is no longer just a clash of cultures or worldviews, but runs into the separation of church and state. We have had some discussions about French Muslims, for instance. Just as they must find a way to express their culture within the framework of French laws, U.S. Christians must stay within U.S. laws. The distinction becomes especially blurred when a private, often a religious, organization is in the position of providing a public service, as through Pres Bush's "Faith-based initiative".

So, basically, while rejecting relativism, you favor the mosaic model over the "melting pot" one?
So do I. In the melting pot, every constituent part loses its individual identity, and the whole becomes some homogeneous substance. In the mosaic, each piece is identifiable as an individual, but notice: each must be cut sometimes to fit into a good place in the overall design. Hence the compromise of surrendering or revising some parts of your culture (e.g. learning a new language) while retaining others (preferences in food, home decor, etc).

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, tolerance is a means, a practice, much like civility. A means can itself be an end, though. Consider literacy. Reading and writing are means of communication, enabling people to share and store information. For someone lacking this skill, literacy becomes a goal.

As human beings, we're biologically inclined to make judgments, no matter what our type is, or who we are. We categorize things, and people, in order to remember and understand them better. Some people do this without even thinking about it. Some people probably secretly feel badly for doing it.

Much of stereotyping is simply due to environmental factors.

If you were raised from childhood in a nude tribe, you would naturally adapt. These individuals wouldn't leer at women, or even think twice about it. Then, let's take one of the female teenagers from one of these tribes, and place them in an American classroom. Of course, she comes to class topless. Chaos!
Did the girl assume she would be accepted as she was, or did she know she would be going against established custom? In short, did she fail to adapt out of ignorance, or choice? Conflicts like this arise as much from faulty assumption (that everyone will act like us) as from deliberate stubbornness.

Being cautious based upon preliminary data does make sense, but information when it comes to people is often unpredictable. That's why it's important to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Critical thinking.
If the nudist girl had landed in Alaska, it wouldn't have taken her long to figure out that clothing definitely makes sense. Social constraints can be much less compelling. I suppose we are back at Te vs. Fe judgment.
 

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
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.
What are your sources?
(except for TG, and well, she has reasonable grounds as my worthy mortal frenemy)
The comma before "and" should be placed after "and" and before "well".

/english major
 

iwakar

crush the fences
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,877
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Some of us walk through the world alternating between beating our fists in frustration and observing the world to try and learn what we can from it.

Many of us stubbornly or fearfully occupy one state of being far more than the other and marvel how little we learn or how little we live.

Balance is good folks, and it is not a passionless existence.
 

Fleeting

New member
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
53
MBTI Type
ENTP
If the nudist girl had landed in Alaska, it wouldn't have taken her long to figure out that clothing definitely makes sense. Social constraints can be much less compelling. I suppose we are back at Te vs. Fe judgment.

Yep. Depends on the environment.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Why the tone? It was meant with the best of intentions, as I was interested in the topic, and interested in what you had to say, without your histrionics, which were threatening drown out the debate.

Don't bother replying to this, I have you on ignore as you are primed for a fight. It's shame because you are good value when you don't have that huge chip on your shoulder.

At least you are entertaining in this mood, I'll give that.

lol this is hilarious!!!111

why the tone? Because I knew when you said take it back a notch you were referring to what you perceive to be "my histrionics"...that you now openly admit when confronted

passive aggression is so transparent to me. I hate it more than most things in daily life, I see it as an insiduouly dishonest way of being an asshole while trying to make the other person look bad, and keep lying to yourself that you were in the right.

That's why Im drawn to direct people, and even those who are openly assholes so I don't have to deal with this self-righteous b.s.

Pro tip: if you want to condescendingly play kindergarten teacher or amateur moderator do it privately via rep or pm instead of presuming people want your passive aggressive moral correction in public, its a way to maintain a level of respect.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Tolerance does not mean changing your personal beliefs. It does mean coexisting peacefully with people whose beliefs are different. In other words, treating the gay couple next door with courtesy and fairness even if you disagree with gay unions. We cannot legislate or force our beliefs on others, we can only place requirements on actions. Sometimes beliefs follow actions, as when someone comes to see gay relationships in a different light after gaining more direct experience with gay couples. This can only evolve on its own, though.


In principle I agree. The sticking point is just how far this basic framework reaches. What laws must the private institutions hold to? Child labor restrictions? No racial/gender/nationality/gay discrimination? OSHA safety rules? Building codes? Must they pay minimum wage, or even deduct taxes/FICA contributions? Especially when it comes to religious organizations, it is no longer just a clash of cultures or worldviews, but runs into the separation of church and state. We have had some discussions about French Muslims, for instance. Just as they must find a way to express their culture within the framework of French laws, U.S. Christians must stay within U.S. laws. The distinction becomes especially blurred when a private, often a religious, organization is in the position of providing a public service, as through Pres Bush's "Faith-based initiative".


So do I. In the melting pot, every constituent part loses its individual identity, and the whole becomes some homogeneous substance. In the mosaic, each piece is identifiable as an individual, but notice: each must be cut sometimes to fit into a good place in the overall design. Hence the compromise of surrendering or revising some parts of your culture (e.g. learning a new language) while retaining others (preferences in food, home decor, etc).


Yes, tolerance is a means, a practice, much like civility. A means can itself be an end, though. Consider literacy. Reading and writing are means of communication, enabling people to share and store information. For someone lacking this skill, literacy becomes a goal.


Did the girl assume she would be accepted as she was, or did she know she would be going against established custom? In short, did she fail to adapt out of ignorance, or choice? Conflicts like this arise as much from faulty assumption (that everyone will act like us) as from deliberate stubbornness.


If the nudist girl had landed in Alaska, it wouldn't have taken her long to figure out that clothing definitely makes sense. Social constraints can be much less compelling. I suppose we are back at Te vs. Fe judgment.

agreed. And does this practically make sense tends to be how I think, if I am not operating by my own Fi. Social compulsion makes sense to me when and only when its pragmatic.

And my argument is that tolerance as an end goal unto itself can be pushed to a point that it no longer necessarily makes pragmatic sense, but is simply followed bc it is understood to be socially correct.
...and that is what I question
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Yes, tolerance is a means, a practice, much like civility. A means can itself be an end, though. Consider literacy. Reading and writing are means of communication, enabling people to share and store information. For someone lacking this skill, literacy becomes a goal.

Whether tolerance itself can be considered an end is, I think, conditional on other factors.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
I see oppressive tolerance here as well Marm.

I would have posted more substantively earlier, but I didn't want to get roped into the whole situation.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Simply if you want to change someone's mind or perception about something then you need to convince them and they need to do the rest themselves. But what you cant do is force them or enforce a mindset of consideration towards something just because it is 'right' or 'nice'.

Look at racism, all the current social environment of tolerism did was push it underground, so that it builds like a pus-filled wound and then seeps out all over the place like on the internet. People cannot help but notice what they see as double-standards or discrepancies in what so called 'tolerance' wishes to bring about. Of course sometimes such people are completely wrong and their perception is based on a bias of information subject to their observations.

But there is often a valid point in there as well.

As a child I was given the luxury of choice, no one told me racism was wrong or right. I was allowed to choose it for myself, (although there will always be some external influences and only a naive fool would say otherwise but they were not strong indoctrinations), but I came to the conclusion over time that racism was wrong in a value driven way because it cannot be accurate or fair to judge someone solely on one aspect of their being like that. Especially to apply a series of pre-conceived ideas of how that person would act because of it.

However it was never and will never be a crusade of mine. For me it is dripping water on a stone, you cant just force people to accept a mindset they dont have. If people are racist of mind then that is their prerogative, if you wish to change it do so with intelligent argument and convince them. But dont try to bring about a socially enforced mindset that follows you around like an old woman tapping you on the shoulder and reminding you of the past.

In the formal enviroment of the workplace and in shopping etc... of course it should be illegal to refuse either commerce or jobs just because of racial appearance or background. But people shouldn't have to enforce it in the informal setting of the rest of life.

You dont have to like those opinions of course, but in this country people have actually been arrested for doing something like posting racist tweets. To me that is nothing short of facism. I dont like the tweets and I dont support them, but to arrest someone for them? Why not simply remove them from the site and moderators there can ban the person if they so wish based on their own site rules?

It's a dangerous prosecution which uses emotional trauma from verbal comments as it's basis. And it sets a dangerous precedent.

Unfortunately such a position is usually held by those who are upset that their views are now more readily challenged. Saying something and receiving a response is not what im talking about and there is no problem with that in day to day life.

But if someone who did not hold those views was to mention it, he or she would br drowned out by those who did and those who do so for the wrong reasons, an example of which is above.

My problem lies entirely within an official enforcement of thinking or feeling something and how people can only do that and hold no other view outward or inward.
This does not mean of course that we should dismiss crimes that are racially motivated, but it also doesn't mean that we need to suddenly turn everything into a discussion about race over the problem of the crime itself, nor is it a justification for prejudicial views, but then again that is my own opinion; this is the point.

For myself ive always been one for individual criteria, for me fairness or equality means that each person has the right to be judged in the same way, based on the same signals and traits. How they walk, they expression, their clothes, their mannerisms, their idiosyncracies, their views and so on. I feel no obligation to go out of my way to help or be nicer to someone of a different skin colour, but I do see an obligation to go out of my way to help or be nice to those individuals who I like or have an affinity for, this is the realm of personal bias, but it is one no one can deny or escape. Also I do note differences in skin colour or facial attributes, but that doesn't mean I make a judgement about it or based on it. I just think it is idiotic to say such things as 'colourblind'.

Im also talking from all angles here as well, not just white people towards others.

Incidentally this entire essay of a post is actually applicable to anything, not just race but I used such a subject because it is the most obvious and prevelant.
 

Vilku

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
ive reached the conclusion, tolerance is the most illogical moral meme of twenty first century.

why? lets say you have person with Se + Fe and a person with Fi + Si..
fi si believes the other is responsible for controlling their feelings, and then BANG! out of nowhere, for no apparent reason the fe + se user physically assaults si fi user due misinterpreting a smile incorrectly.

well.. in finland that justifies it cause se fe felt threatened, therefore his actions, even if with permanent injuries are perfectly justified.
and for an si fi user, the organ which got damage might hold the only reason they live for, say, if the person is a passionate musician and you lost ability to sing properly.

well this happened to me, and after six months im not having that much trouble swallowing anymore... but my ability to voice act and sing has suffered, and not fully recovered. as it just happens, voice acting is the only passion which has allowed me to keep surviving for many years, and it takes one idiot + morally screwed society to take it from me?

morality is science, saying otherwise will demise lives of many innocents.
just cause some book says how its predetermined is the reason why this individual didnt even reckon his action at any point, as he knew there are no penalties for assaulting when you poses an excuse.

if there are more se + fe users, that means its literally illegal to be fi si user as they se fe's set the moral standards, and as such necessity of psychological study and reformation of laws is absolute necessity.
what is supposed to be obvious only cause for majority it is, doesnt mean it ever will be for me especially as i simply dont experience what they do, and as such poses natural barrier of understanding the animalistic aggression rules which shape laws.
 
Top