Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Is this a troll? Am I being trolled? That's a thing that happens on the internet right? I was making a joke about the recursion. Your response makes me question if we're even actually speaking the same language here.

I have absolutely no clue what is going on. I'm not a troll. I am a humanBeing without a senseOf(humor).

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Honestly I'm pretty insulted. You're applying totally different meanings to the same word.

This is refuckingdiculous.

Please elucidate. Which two meanings, where, in which context, in which post?

[Criptfeind]

You've totally missed my point here wierd. It really doesn't matter what you mean by tolerance. You say it's just accept that people feel a certain way, fine, how do you go around and say that it's then LESS FINE for people to feel a different way, specifically in a way that feeling one way is wrong?

But, no, that's not what you do. Instead you say Intolerance (Legislation and physical action) of Intolerance (how someone feels.) is wrong. You're applying two different meanings to the same word.

[Max™]

I am recursively intolerant of people who use "ironic" in an ironic fashion without grasping the reason it is actually ironic.

[wierd]

Yes, the Meribster dictionary.

Google is fairly sure that dictionary doesn't exist.

https://www.google.com/#q=meribster+dictionary

[wierd]

You've totally missed my point here wierd. It really doesn't matter what you mean by tolerance. You say it's just accept that people feel a certain way, fine, how do you go around and say that it's then LESS FINE for people to feel a different way, specifically in a way that feeling one way is wrong?

But, no, that's not what you do. Instead you say Intolerance (Legislation and physical action) of Intolerance (how someone feels.) is wrong. You're applying two different meanings to the same word.

The first has another word for it, the the latter does not.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

[Loud Whispers]

@LW: From what I've seen of the alt-right, they don't support LGBT whatsoever. Though I suppose when I think alt-right I think monarchists and shit, not just 'far-right pseudo-nazis'.

From what I've seen, they don't want to support it, but their movement's leaders do

I am recursively intolerant of people who use "ironic" in an ironic fashion without grasping the reason it is actually ironic.

My favourite one is being intolerant of people who are intolerant of those who use ironic in an inaccurate fashion, but themselves do not understand when irony is being accurately employed and so attack all who may resemble any form of irony, in common or accurate usage

[Criptfeind]

... My point Wierd. Is that you. Or, rather, Doze with you emphatically agreeing. Are using the same word for both!

If you had said Tyranny to suppress Intolerance is not acceptable, you'd probably find more agreement from me then saying Intolerance for Intolerance is not acceptable. Of course, there'd be less room for backpatting.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

You've totally missed my point here wierd. It really doesn't matter what you mean by tolerance. You say it's just accept that people feel a certain way, fine, how do you go around and say that it's then LESS FINE for people to feel a different way, specifically in a way that feeling one way is wrong?

But, no, that's not what you do. Instead you say Intolerance (Legislation and physical action) of Intolerance (how someone feels.) is wrong. You're applying two different meanings to the same word.

That's certainly not how I'm using the terms.

[wierd]

Both are linguistically equal. One is just ambiguous.

[Criptfeind]

Doze:

"Islam is bad and it is bad to practice it." This is intolerance.
"Intolerance is bad and it is bad to practice it." This isn't. There's a big difference between intolerance and Islam. I'm finding it hard to express though.

You're going to have to find it within yourself to express this then if you want to try to explain how the second one is worse then the first.

(Why didn't I get the someone posted message?)

Weird: Okay, like I said, you're using different meanings for the same word, within the same sentence more over! This is not something you should do if you want to be understood.

[wierd]

@LW: From what I've seen of the alt-right, they don't support LGBT whatsoever. Though I suppose when I think alt-right I think monarchists and shit, not just 'far-right pseudo-nazis'.

From what I've seen, they don't want to support it, but their movement's leaders do

I am recursively intolerant of people who use "ironic" in an ironic fashion without grasping the reason it is actually ironic.

My favourite one is being intolerant of people who are intolerant of those who use ironic in an inaccurate fashion, but themselves do not understand when irony is being accurately employed and so attack all who may resemble any form of irony, in common or accurate usage

It must be nice to be so easily entertained...

[wierd]

Doze:

"Islam is bad and it is bad to practice it." This is intolerance.
"Intolerance is bad and it is bad to practice it." This isn't. There's a big difference between intolerance and Islam. I'm finding it hard to express though.

You're going to have to find it within yourself to express this then if you want to try to explain how the second one is worse then the first.

(Why didn't I get the someone posted message?)

Weird: Okay, like I said, you're using different meanings for the same word, within the same sentence more over! This is not something you should do if you want to be understood.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

It is a perfectly cogent sentence.

Really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

Ambiguity causes breakdown in communication. However, note I am not the one who started the dialog with that choice of words. I merely pointed out the error.

[Criptfeind]

Ambiguity causes breakdown in communication. However, note I am not the one who started the dialog with that choice of words. I merely pointed out the error.

No, like I said, Doze started it, and you wholeheartedly agreed. You didn't point out shit. I had to spend like 20 minutes digging though your non sequitur responses to suss it out.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

... My point Wierd. Is that you. Or, rather, Doze with you emphatically agreeing. Are using the same word for both!

If you had said Tyranny to suppress Intolerance is not acceptable, you'd probably find more agreement from me then saying Intolerance for Intolerance is not acceptable. Of course, there'd be less room for backpatting.

Intolerance of intolerance is not a good thing and that is my opinion. If you want to argue otherwise, that's your right.

Intolerance, as people practice it, should not be accepted. But we should be able to live alongside bigots (ferex), interact peaceably with bigots, see bigots as human beings.

A good definition is "respect and kindness toward members of an outgroup," as the SSC person puts it. Even if that outgroup lacks respect and kindness toward other people.

Also, I reread Crashmaster's slightly-unclear post and it turns out that he didn't say to intolerate the intolerant AFAICT. To reiterate, I have been tilting at windmills. This whole thing is confused because it started with a misunderstanding.

Doze:

"Islam is bad and it is bad to practice it." This is intolerance.
"Intolerance is bad and it is bad to practice it." This isn't. There's a big difference between intolerance and Islam. I'm finding it hard to express though.

You're going to have to find it within yourself to express this then if you want to try to explain how the second one is worse then the first.

(Why didn't I get the someone posted message?)

Weird: Okay, like I said, you're using different meanings for the same word, within the same sentence more over! This is not something you should do if you want to be understood.

To clear things up, my post stated that the second is not intolerance and the first is.

And that point no longer makes sense to me, so I will abandon it. I was getting somewhat confused with all the different definitions, that I will admit.

Basically - people should be respectful to disrespectful people. That's all I mean now. Don't out-group those who out-group others. Don't fight fire with fire.

Ambiguity causes breakdown in communication. However, note I am not the one who started the dialog with that choice of words. I merely pointed out the error.

No, like I said, Doze started it, and you wholeheartedly agreed.

Quote and elucidate, please. Where did I equivocate?