Jo498 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I think Solo got it backwards, sorry. Of course, it is a "given" for e.g. traditional catholics that protestants are wrong and heretics. But the concept of tolerance helped to achieve something like peaceful coexistence. The realistic alternatives are not only uniformity and continuous strife. With 21st century political stances we seem to become more manichaean than religious warriors of the 17th century. Who is not with us, is against us and differing opinions are "hate speech" and not to be tolerated. Become completely like us or you are our enemy. The very idea of tolerance was to break up such a dichotomy. If a conservative christian college will not admit non-celibate gays, they are haters and deserve to be closed down. We seem to be unable to tolerate such a position, although there are plenty of colleges left for gay persons to attend (and they would probably not be happy at such a christian institution anyway, being merely "tolerated"). (I am using the example of gay sex because of recent "culture wars" and because the majority stance here has shifted from tolerance to acceptance to approval (with the converse that anyone who merely tolerates e.g. gay subculture is a hater) in the living memory of someone in his mid-40s, namely within about 30 years or less.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I honestly don't see people saying you can't have your conservative christian college that excludes gay people, although it absolutely is bigoted. What is said is that you can't use public money for it, because public money being used for discriminatory educational purposes like that is pretty absurd. I also only ask for acceptance not approval, I don't approve of heterosexual relationships..wtf does approval even necessarily mean in that context? I approve of heterosexual relationships that are loving and healthy, because they are excellent relationships not because they are heterosexual. I'd like homosexual relationships to be given the same courtesy, to just be judged on their merits, but the resentful tone of your post suggests that's unlikely to be forthcoming even if you won't admit it. As for your religious comparison, it's possible to disagree with someone and still accept rather than merely tolerate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Karaddin, Why do you need other's "acceptance and approval"? Why is that something that should be demanded from others as opposed to gaining such through discussion and debate? Why is it, in my perception of your position, owed without such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Yeah, I can see the angle that if you say you 'tolerate' something it's like saying you 'suffer' it. The implication is that you're putting up with something lousy or less than you should, has some connotation of bearing up under the shit of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Scot, if you need to ask that question you haven't read my posts in this thread. In the last post I said I don't need or expect approval other than on the same terms anyone else would be treated. The entire discussion about negative connotations of tolerate are why I demand acceptance not being tolerated. To tolerate me is to still other me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Karaddin, To tolerate me is to still other me. Interesting. I'm not sure I agree but definately something to think on. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 snark, that's kinda a tautological contribution if 'tolerance' is criticized specifically as an ancient liberal doctrine with a specific set of defects; you may note that i have rejected the premises of the doctrine as not enough/too slow rather than on the bogus cliché that you have tendered. Jo, no apology necessary. in the context you describe, tolerance doctrine should be read as a progressive step, similar to krafft-ebing's writings on 'inversion,' both of which are substantially retrograde now under the evolving standards of decency that mark the maturation of civilized society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Karaddin, Sologdin, If mere tolerance is unacceptable aren't you predicating a world wherein the only choices left are absolute acceptance or absolute opposition. Isn't that the false dichotomy fallacy? Is it not possible to disagree with someone's assertion without feeling the need to directly oppose that assertion or merely oppose through discussion rather than more vigorous opposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I don't have to tolerate anything. That said, I value diverse viewpoints, even if I strenuously disagree with a lot of them. If someone doesn't wish to tolerate me because I am willing to listen to (though not agree with) viewpoints they dislike, that's cool. If I don't wish to tolerate someone whose ideas are hateful to me, I'm also within my rights to stop listening. That siad, I'd usually rather listen so that I know what's out there. Living in a protective bubble is dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 scot, marketplace of ideas, surely? one should be competent to confront difference without creating unwarranted aesthetic or ethical hierarchies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I agree with Dr. Pepper and Drawkabi. "Tolerance" comes in supporting the rights of people to free speech and expression in the public square. Facebook is NOT part of the "public square." It's a venue where the people you are communicating with are supposed to be "friends", not a random sample of the general public. "Defriending" or blocking someone on Facebook because you don't like their opinions is not the same thing as intolerance. If it is "intolerant" to block something you don't like on Facebook, then it would be "intolerance" to ignore and walk past any crazy speaker in a public park. Forcing someone, even oneself, to listen to or read any particular bit of "speech" would itself be intolerant. I have blocked a few "friends" from my "feed" on Facebook, not because of their opinions, but because they were people who posted way too much. Almost all of the stuff my "friends" post on Facebook that I don't want to see is a repost from somewhere else, and Facebook now gives you the option of blocking reposts from the original source, not blocking everything from your "friend." I find myself doing that sort of blocking all the time. I don't see that I have any obligation to look at reposts from sites using what I consider to be foul language, or that spout anti-immigrant rhetoric. To me the purpose of Facebook is to keep up with personal stuff going on with distant family and friends, and blocking reposts I find disturbing is just getting Facebook back to the purpose I want it used for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 11 minutes ago, sologdin said: scot, marketplace of ideas, surely? one should be competent to confront difference without creating unwarranted aesthetic or ethical hierarchies. Sologdin, What do you mean? I don't agree with pagans or athiests but I see no need and have no desire to act to elimnate their ideas. What is wrong with "tolerating" them without accepting them as correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 scot, you insist on the term 'tolerance' without cogitating on its significance. it dies not follow from my position, supra, that i want to eliminate difference. by contrast, it does follow from tolerance doctrine that the tolerated position/person is subordinate to the purported tolerator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Sologdin, So, is your dislike of "tolerance" purely semantic because it gives the impression of superiority over ideas and philosophies that are "tolerated"? Is "co-existence" a better term than tolerance? I can co-exist with ideas and philosophies with which I disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 no such thing as pure semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Sologdin, What about subsituting "co-existence" for "tolerance"? Better, no real difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Killer Snark Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I think that would be more apposite. 'Co-existence' would be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 6 hours ago, sologdin said: scot, marketplace of ideas, surely? one should be competent to confront difference without creating unwarranted aesthetic or ethical hierarchies. Given the number of topics I've clashed with Scot on over my perceiving him go be making a moral judgement which he has then said was a purely aesthetic preference, I'm not actually sure this is the case. I can accept someone holds a different opinion to me, I can accept that someone might be wrong without merely tolerating them. Tolerating them also has a much stronger assumption that I am right in the context of people with differing ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Karaddin, What about "co-existence" as opposed to tolerance? I can and do disagree with people I'm happy to co-exist with understanding that we have strong disagreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I don't have the same objection to co-existence that I do with tolerance. It doesn't have the subordinative implication that solo remarked on with tolerance. It does still carry more of an idea of opposition than I like when applied to people, but when applied to co-existing with people whose ideas you disagree with that opposition is intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.