Print

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

[wierd]

Is it hyperbole day ALREADY?

I forgot my pope hat!

[Criptfeind]

I come back after a long while, I see there was a response to my post. That's good, the response is bad. If you can't even avoid quoting out tiny snippits of what I say to totally avoid any context at the same time you strawman the hell out of me Crashmaster... Well, basically I can't respond to you short of just posting what I wrote all over again. Literally no part of your response to me had any basis in reality or what I said, except maybe the final "spinning at windmills" thing, which, could be a conclusion to pull. After arguing against my points. Which you didn't do. So even that's pretty iffy.


What do you even mean by that Doze? "Intolerance to intolerance?...

To not tolerate the intolerant is of course a no-win trap.

Oh hey, it's that time again! Obligatory awesome post.

Basically, intolerance of intolerance is not okay. And you certainly can't claim to be "good because I'm tolerant" if you're only tolerant of people and ideologies that you like! As an ex-intolerance-intolerator, LET US DISCUSS THIS POSTHASTE.

Yay, somebody besides myself gets it!

You're being intolerant to my intolerance of intolerance.

Edit:

Freedom of thought and expression is a two way street.

I as the saying goes, "I do not agree with a word you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

A belief is never wrong to have, only wrong to act on.

The issue here is that "acting" vs "having" is vague. Like. Super vague. In both ways. Sometimes speech is non verbal, sometimes hateful actions are accomplished though speech. Simply platitudes like this fail to take both into account.

[wierd]

Not really. You can hold your opinion. It is just a misguided one. You are free to have it all the same.

What you are NOT free to do, is impose a panopticon to enforce "good think."

[Egan_BW]

Ah, I used all that hyperbole, when all I needed was recursion. Oh well.

[wierd]

Naw, recursion is not enough either. Circular logic is silly.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

... Are you telling people to tolerate people being intolerant towards them?

Turn the other cheek /s

Rolepgeek described the acceptance-tolerance distinction well. I'd like to add my own thoughts on an acts-thoughts distinction as well, and additionally a personal-abstract distinction. (Edit: and wierd ninjas me on the acts-thoughts distinction)

If somebody commits an unlawful or unethical act against you, driven by intolerance, then they are bad and should be stopped. That is quite distinct from intolerance itself.

Wait, what is intolerance exactly? Defining these terms precisely could be quite useful IMO.

Anyway, there is also the possibility of being intolerant of a group's efforts while still being decent and nice to the individual people. That is, working to stop intolerance, but not shunning (etc.) intolerant people.

======

On the Topic of Recursion:

Let us first define intolerance. If not, people might equivocate! The horror!

[Criptfeind]

Not really. You can hold your opinion. It is just a misguided one. You are free to have it all the same.

What you are NOT free to do, is impose a panopticon to enforce "good think."

I guess lucky for you controlling thoughts is currently outside the realm of our technology. So you have nothing to worry about.

[wierd]

Webster on "tolerate"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerate

The first def deals with actions, which we are not discussing here. The second is a verb form for endurance ability. The third us our winner tonight.

To do otherwise is to advocate thoughtcrime.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

The greatest form of tolerance is apathy! Let's tolerate racism! Let's tolerate misinformation! Let's tolerate death!
Nothing really matters, so let's tolerate everything! Yup, it's fine, intolerant people, go ahead, we don't mind at all!

There's a different between "working to eliminate intolerance" and "in-tolerating intolerance", at least in the way that I use those terms.

What do you even mean by that Doze? "Intolerance to intolerance?...

Well, outgroup and otherness and all that shit. Regressive left and whatnot. If we make othering bad, then othering those who other is also bad, right?

You're being intolerant to my intolerance of intolerance.

Ah, but I'm not. If I were being intolerant, you'd likely be seeing... stuff that Toady might ban people over. I'm not attacking you, and I'm not saying that you are a bad person for being intolerant, I'm just saying that intolerance is bad in general.

"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.

I'm not accepting your intolerance, I'm not saying that it's good, but I am still being tolerant of it. Shades of gray, people.

And on the "recursive" topic - it is self-referential in a way. Many things are. It makes it very difficult to ponder, but ponder I shall; you shouldn't dismiss it by saying "it refers to the same topic that it itself is categorized as."

Webster on "tolerate"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerate

The first def deals with actions, which we are not discussing here. The second is a verb form for endurance ability. The third us our winner tonight.

To do otherwise is to advocate thoughtcrime.

To put up with! That is the perfect definition, yes. To be able to live alongside, even though you disagree.

[Criptfeind]

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.

[Shadowlord]

https://twitter.com/lottelydia/status/798211511915319296

[wierd]

No dear friend, its one of those brain breakers you get exposed to when you learn civics.

What's the difference between your right to assemble, associate, and speak freely-- and Theirs?

Arbitrary logic of course!

To preserve that right, you have to respect it in those you disagree with.

[Criptfeind]

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

This is refuckingdiculous.

[wierd]

Webster isn't a sufficiently authoritative source?

Should I consult another dictionary?

[smjjames]

Yes, the Meribster dictionary.