Tolerance, does it require acceptance to be tolerance, what does it mean to you?

[James Arryn]

Somewhere between trusting your own standards more than others and impotence lies w/e version of 'tolerance' y'all are talking about. I'd love to follow this down into even some kind of semiotic circle-jerk, but I think it's already too front loaded to get anywhere interesting. 

 

Maybe it's me, though. :($&

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

James,

The "w/e version of 'tolerance'"?  What is that?

On February 12, 2016 at 7:27 PM, James Arryn said:

Somewhere between trusting your own standards more than others and impotence lies w/e version of 'tolerance' y'all are talking about. I'd love to follow this down into even some kind of semiotic circle-jerk, but I think it's already too front loaded to get anywhere interesting. 

 

Maybe it's me, though. :($&

 

[polishgenius]

On 13/02/2016 at 0:37 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

James,

The "w/e version of 'tolerance'"?  What is that?

 

 

...that's what you're discussing, isn't it?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PG,

I don't know what "w/e" means.  Is it "Western European"?

[Theda Baratheon]

w/e means whatever, Scott...

 

James said ''whatever version of tolerance you all are talking about'' 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I've never seen that abbrevation before.

[IamMe90]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I've never seen that abbrevation before.

Uh

 

What

 

Are you 89

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

45 in April.

[WitchyBex]

My patients' tolerate their diets and ability to walk without supplemental oxygen. Interesting perspective Karradin; I had never considered the negative angle before. I suppose that each of us (internally) has the idea that we are the ones correct and others are to be put up with until they see the light.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Tolerance actually has some very nasty implications, if you are "tolerant" of someone from a different ethnicity, or of a sexual orientation then that heavily implies that you hate them for being different, but merely avoid treating them badly for mutual convenience.

That doesn't mean that it isn't a common occurrence however, I'm sure we all know lots of people that are very racist, homophobic, or think less of people with disabilities or something along those lines, yet most of them are "tolerant" in the sense that they don't try to make life difficult for these people and try to coexist with them.

So we shouldn't aim to be "tolerant", we should aim to be accepting, to recognise that other people are different to us and not think less of them because of that.

[The Killer Snark]

Ser Arthur - That sounds dangerously close to Cultural Relativism to me. That FGM is widely practised in Somalia, and that there definitely are proven rape cultures in many hardline Islamist countries is no reason for us to ignore these things, simply by making allowances for less civilised cultures on the grounds that not to do so would seem racist. We should only extend tolerance to those who might have the wrong opinions, but who aren't intent on real criminality and harm.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

7 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

Ser Arthur - That sounds dangerously close to Cultural Relativism to me. That FGM is widely practised in Somalia, and that there definitely are proven rape cultures in many hardline Islamist countries is no reason for us to ignore these things, simply by making allowances for less civilised cultures on the grounds that not to do so would seem racist. We should only extend tolerance to those who might have the wrong opinions, but who aren't intent on real criminality and harm.

I've had some weird responses to posts I've made on the internet, but this has to be the strangest given that it does not seem to relate to my original post at all.

[IamMe90]

9 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

Ser Arthur - That sounds dangerously close to Cultural Relativism to me. That FGM is widely practised in Somalia, and that there definitely are proven rape cultures in many hardline Islamist countries is no reason for us to ignore these things, simply by making allowances for less civilised cultures on the grounds that not to do so would seem racist. We should only extend tolerance to those who might have the wrong opinions, but who aren't intent on real criminality and harm.

 

That is you projecting your own distaste for moral relativism onto a post which makes no such claims. As far as I can see, Ser Arthur is not making any specific moral claims, just that "tolerance" for what IS morally right implies something nasty - namely, that one disdains what is moral to begin with. 

[Castel]

18 hours ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

Tolerance actually has some very nasty implications, if you are "tolerant" of someone from a different ethnicity, or of a sexual orientation then that heavily implies that you hate them for being different, but merely avoid treating them badly for mutual convenience.

That doesn't mean that it isn't a common occurrence however, I'm sure we all know lots of people that are very racist, homophobic, or think less of people with disabilities or something along those lines, yet most of them are "tolerant" in the sense that they don't try to make life difficult for these people and try to coexist with them.

So we shouldn't aim to be "tolerant", we should aim to be accepting, to recognise that other people are different to us and not think less of them because of that.

Funny, how all your examples fall within what liberals are already willing to accept or whose acceptance they campaign for. 

Which is probably exactly why Scot used the example of a rabid Trump supporter as an example of what he tolerated. (And why he drew a distinction)

Otherwise there's really nothing to wrestle with here is there? "The people we want to be accepted should be accepted"

[TerraPrime]

My social media space is not a platform for anyone else but me and the people I deem worthy to be read by others. That's *my* space. I have no positive duty to tolerate anyone, or anything. Anything that gets posted on my social space are there on my permission. If I disallow racist xenophobic messages, I am not guilty of depriving anyone of any freedom of expression. I guard and retain the right to censure and obliterate whatever displeases me. It's called "social" space for that reason.

Just like in real life.

For instance, I don't have to reinforce my credibility as a liberal and open-minded person by inviting the KKK to come to my dinner party. Fuck them. I detest them and their racist ideology and I am not narrow minded for thinking that. Or to put another way, my disinclination to have openly KKK members be guests in my house is not a moral failing of any sort. Being intolerant of certain things is a virtue, like say, being intolerant of priests who molest little children. 

My mother-in-law is anti-semitic, racist, and anti-gay. I do not allow her to post to my wall and I do not follow her feed. I feel pretty okay with it. In fact, I would feel positively horrible if one more of her anti-semitic rants get posted to my FB page and one of my Jewish friends read it. They are already dealing with that shit in their lives 24/7 and I do not, as their friend, need to be an extra source of that bullshittery in their lives. That's the least I can do for them, to offer a social interacting space without that anti-semitic crap. 

I am, however, okay with people posting different political views. Most of my friends are Sanders supporters, and I am not. And that's ok. We can discuss, and we can even make fun of each other over it. But what needs to be clear is that some issues are seen by mainstream media as political differences when, in fact, those are not. Examples:

- we should stop all immigrations from Mexico and South America = valid political differences

- we should stop all those rapist drug-dealing Mexicans from stealing our jobs = bullshit bias that does not belong on my social streams

- we should not ban all guns because guns have legitimate uses = valid political differences

- we should not ban all guns because we will need them to overthrow the Dictator Obama = crazy shit that does not belong on my social streams

 

You get the point. 

[DreamSongs]

Well put Terra.

 

[The Killer Snark]

Very well put. Tolerance and acceptance are actually very different things, and it would be socially ruinous trying to conflate them, which was kind of my earlier point.

[CryptofCthulhu]

For me it means not having to agree at all with the viewpoint and at the same time leaving those people alone to do whatever they are going to do. It becomes an issue when it is turned into a form of coercion. 

 

[The Killer Snark]

Exactly the same as me. So long as jerks keep themselves to themselves as much as possible, and we can call them out on their jerkery, it's not going to affect anyone except themselves.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Why one leftist is frustrated with "leftist culture":

https://medium.com/@UptheCypherPunx/why-this-radical-leftist-is-disillusioned-by-leftist-culture-63419aa85a58#.gv1w6s87g

From the article:

 

Quote

I’m tired of the cliques, the hierarchies, the policing of others, and the power imbalances that exist between people who claim to be friends and comrades. I am exhausted and saddened by the fact that any type of disagreement or difference of opinion in an activist circle will lead to a fight, which sometimes includes abandonment of certain people, deeming them “unsafe” as well as public shaming and slander. It is disgusting that we claim to be building a new world, a new society, a better way of dealing with social problems — but if a person makes a mistake, says and/or does something wrong, they are not even given a chance to explain their side of what happened because the process of conflict resolution is in itself driven by ideology rather than a willingness to understand facts. Actually, in today’s activist circles one is lucky to be given any sort of due process at all, while everyone is put under social pressure to believe everything they are told regardless of what actually occurred in a given situation. This is not freedom. This is not social justice. There is nothing “progressive” or “radical” about it, unless you are referring to fascism.

Speaking of Fascism, there is also a disturbing trend on the left nowadays that involves rejecting free speech/freedom of expression as a core value, because that speech could possibly be hurtful to someone, somewhere. This is not only dangerous but it also works against us, because as leftists we are often labelled as threats by the state and at the very least, we are unpopular by society in general. Does this not mean that freedom of thought and expression are crucial to our struggles? That we should always defend our right to question what we’re taught, our right to be different? As Noam Chomsky put it: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Freedom of expression and the like does not mean we have to agree with what another person says…in fact, it means that when we do not, we certainly have the right to challenge it. But what myself and many others are seeing is the shutting off of dialogue entirely, for the purpose of “safety”. What could possibly be safe about censorship? What could possibly be safe about a group of people who claim to be freedom fighters dictating who can speak and what can be said, based on whether or not we agree with them? Study any kind of world history and you will find that censorship has never been on the right side of it.