Tolerating intolerance

[seebs]

Slacktivist, I think, has captured the essence of the incoherence of the "you're not tolerating my intolerance!" defense:

Here is where illiberal folks like to chime in with something like, "You liberals can tolerate anything except for intolerance." This they seem to imagine is a witty rejoinder that exposes some contradiction in our thinking, as though proponents of tolerance had just proposed the existence of the barber who cuts the hair of all those, and only those, who do not cut their own hair. "Hah!" they cackle, triumphantly, "Then who cuts the barber's hair?" The proper response to such people is to crush them under a rock that is so big even God couldn't lift it.​

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/07/down_on_a_muffi.html

He makes a good point about the way in which a line can usefully be drawn between tolerance for other peoples' actions, and coddling other people who demand not to be exposed to actions they wouldn't themselves take.

 

[red77]

Interesting post........I guess we're probably all guilty of exhibiting intolerance at some points liberals or otherwise, sometimes I've recognised an intolerant attitude within myself towards fundamentalists while being on here, especially when i first joined the forum. It becomes ironic when you feel as though you cant tolerate what you perceive as intolerance in others.......

That said I do think its right to be intolerant of certain things where others actions can cause harm or a negative effect on other people - be it attitudes on a chat forum or elsewhere, I wouldnt exhibit any tolerance for the likes of Fred Phelps for example, it could be argued that I'm displaying the kind of judgemental thinking that he himself flaunts on a regular basis by saying that - but i justify my intolerance of him because of the hate mongering propaganda he purports and the damage he wreaks as a result, to not be intolerant of that would to me be apathetic.........intolerance can sometimes be as necessary as tolerance...........

Anyway, this has got a bit rushed and I'm not even sure if its addressed the OP properly so apologies if this has come over as a bit random..............!

 

[GhostDad]

Hah! I was going to link to Slacktivist's post about this only to find out it was in the OP.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Isn't intolerance against intolerance "tough love"? All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

 

[Im_A]

Isn't intolerance against intolerance "tough love"? All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

i figure it's just picking and choosing what one wants to be tolerant and intolerant with.

 

[Mling]

Well, if you really do believe that all should be able to hold their own beliefs, some tolerance of intolerance is necessary. The thing is, though, if you believe all should be welcome to hold their own beliefs, and you see somebody attacking somebody else's beliefs, it is perfectly consistant to oppose it. Having a belief is one thing...hurting or abusing somebody else, or interfering with their right to hold their belief is something else.

Example--I heard of a case a while ago where a small business owner was told by the local police, or some other government agency, that he could not sell certain CD's because they encouraged murdering homosexuals. Personally, I think a small business owner has the right to sell whatever he wants, and his customers have the right to listen to whatever they want, and the singers have the right to sing whatever they want.

The moment any one of them actually hurts somebody, though...that's where my tolerance ends.

 

[non-religious]

[Mling]

Example--I heard of a case a while ago where a small business owner was told by the local police, or some other government agency, that he could not sell certain CD's because they encouraged murdering homosexuals. Personally, I think a small business owner has the right to sell whatever he wants, and his customers have the right to listen to whatever they want, and the singers have the right to sing whatever they want.

The moment any one of them actually hurts somebody, though...that's where my tolerance ends.

Mmmm not sure about this one....

So if that business sells this hate then according to you're logic until someone is actually physically harmed by these people you would tolerate their presence and music? Am I understanding you so far?

So that band lives in a community and does gigs around their neighbourhood. They obviously have a dislike against homosexuals (which is perfectly legal) but their supporters or followers also have a dislike and take it upon themselves to harrass, intimidate, verbally abuse and create an atmosphere of fear for homosexuals, but don't physically harm them. Are you still comfortable tolerating them? If it were a friend of yours being harrassed or a gig being played in you're neighbourhood are you still comfortable tolerating them?

It's like the a racist party we have over here called the BNP. They do gigs, they campaign, they put themselves up for elections, go out into communities and share their message. All totally legal and above board and tolerated by the wider public. However they are known to have x-cons in their midst, violent racist thugs and have a tendancy to intimidate people and cause civil unrest. I am very intolerant of their message and presence in our country and whether or not they have physically harmed someone isn't a line I draw up to decide when I find them intolerable. To tolerate an organisation or person that willfully speaks about harming others is reprehensible in my opinion.

So yeah I do show intolerance to many things and just like the BNP can be intolerant to me and my people or a band can be intolerant towards homosexuals, it doesn't justify or mean I have to tolerate them until they carry out their hate in a physical form.

 

[non-religious]

There is also this term "zero-tolerance" which implies absolute intolerance. My wife is a school teacher and bullying isn't tolerated in any form. Should we then tolerate name calling and accept it as the norm only until the bullying becomes physical?

It's nonsensical to assume so..

 

[Mling]

I guess "hurt" wasn't the right word. I do agree that harassment and creating an environment of fear are "a different sort of hit." What I meant was more like--in America, especially, you can't criminalize music, or selling things which aren't strictly illegal, just because they are offensive. We're fairly hardcore about that. There have certainly been cases where somebody was spewing hatred, and then one of their followers went out and killed somebody. The standard seems to be, if they said "We need to kill all the n****** and j***!" They are not responsible if their followers actually take them up on it. If they said "Look, there's one now!" or "Here's the list, the first one lives at 5 Shishkabob Lane. Go get him!" Then they are charged with...inciting a riot, I believe, and some type of murder, if it applies. That said, if their followers are stalking people, they (the followers) can be charged with stalking. Assault does not require physical contact either.

It is an ackward situation, definitely. We end up being forced to allow KKK demonstrations and parades. But, the thinking goes, if we can ban an organization, or music shop or whatever, from doing something solely because it is offensive, then...what happens if cultural standards change, and more things become offensive, which we now think are ok. Banning this, now, could set a nasty precedent for banning...the Memorial Day Parade, or Christian music, sometime in the future.

edit: and bullying can absolutely take non-physical forms, and that needs to be recognized (my mother's friend has a daughter who had an absolutely horrible time at school because her abusers figured out that they wouldn't get in trouble so long as they never touched her).

 

[Harpuia]

Isn't intolerance against intolerance "tough love"? All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

Well, that's the way the Religious Right have been trying to do to the "intolerant" Hollywood left for years. lol.

 

[non-religious]

[Mling]

It is an ackward situation, definitely. We end up being forced to allow KKK demonstrations and parades. But, the thinking goes, if we can ban an organization, or music shop or whatever, from doing something solely because it is offensive, then...what happens if cultural standards change, and more things become offensive, which we now think are ok. Banning this, now, could set a nasty precedent for banning...the Memorial Day Parade, or Christian music, sometime in the future.

I agree with you here.....

That's why these organisations and groups exist because as long as they are not inciting or actually causing harm, then there's no problem. It comes down to that famous line about " I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." If a racist comedian performs at a club, I personally wouldn't go to see his show, but I wouldn't have a problem with him performing his act. If however that same comedian was in my presence, for example at my workplace or on the street around the corner from my home performing that same act and saying those same racist jokes, I would be utterly intolerant of his presence and would make it absolutely known. I have no problem with that.....

We also had this terrible problem with racism in football. Back in the 70s racism was rife in soccer because black players were a minority. Acts like monkey chanting, hurling racial abuse and even throwing bananas at the players were commonplace and very much tolerated. No-one said anything and no-one complained. As time went on and black players became more prevelant within the game, racism although still an issue became something people just no longer tolerated. So when a fan in the crowd shouted racist abuse at a player, other supporters around him started telling him to stop it and made it clear that they weren't going to tolerate that form of abuse being used. So I guess in this example intolerance has come about in a natural and progressive way.

 

[nadroj1985]

Anyone who elevates "tolerance" to a universal moral law or some such thing is silly, IMO. Life is nothing but deciding what and what not to tolerate. The debate between conservatives and liberals has never been about whether or not toleration in itself is valuable. It's about which specific things ought and ought not to be tolerated.

 

[Cleany]

Slacktivist, I think, has captured the essence of the incoherence of the "you're not tolerating my intolerance!" defense:

Here is where illiberal folks like to chime in with something like, "You liberals can tolerate anything except for intolerance." This they seem to imagine is a witty rejoinder that exposes some contradiction in our thinking, as though proponents of tolerance had just proposed the existence of the barber who cuts the hair of all those, and only those, who do not cut their own hair. "Hah!" they cackle, triumphantly, "Then who cuts the barber's hair?" The proper response to such people is to crush them under a rock that is so big even God couldn't lift it.​

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/07/down_on_a_muffi.html

He makes a good point about the way in which a line can usefully be drawn between tolerance for other peoples' actions, and coddling other people who demand not to be exposed to actions they wouldn't themselves take.

i didnt have time to read the article but first of all the question confused me - but then i realised. the problem only exists for people who see life in terms of rules and set boundaries.

i choose to be tolerant or i simply am tolerant. it just happens. it is something that i do. it describes behaviour or aspirations.

it is not a rule, or some element in a formula that needs to be worked out in relation to other things.

so then, i can be tolerant, and yet tell an intolerant person to get lost. this is inconsistant in the formulaic sense, but totally consistant with real life, which is inconsistant itself.

my aspirations are not bound by those who would use them to opress me - they can get stuffed!

 

[Vegas]

I am reminded of the argument that Republican peccadillos are worse than Democrat's because Republican's act so "holier than thou". If that is a valid argument, then why can't Democrat intolerance be seen as worse than Republican's for a similar reason.. that Democrats preach tolerance as one of their basic tenents, and Republicans see tolerance as weak and wishy washy.

 

[Mling]

I am reminded of the argument that Republican peccadillos are worse than Democrat's because Republican's act so "holier than thou". If that is a valid argument, then why can't Democrat intolerance be seen as worse than Republican's for a similar reason.. that Democrats preach tolerance as one of their basic tenents, and Republicans see tolerance as weak and wishy washy.

I think it is worse if the Democrats (or liberals, or whatever you want to call them) are truly being intolerant. But people often claim "you're not tolerating me" when they really mean "You're not letting me beat up anybody I want," or "you're not making everybody else play by my rules."

 

[Vegas]

I think it is worse if the Democrats (or liberals, or whatever you want to call them) are truly being intolerant. But people often claim "you're not tolerating me" when they really mean "You're not letting me beat up anybody I want," or "you're not making everybody else play by my rules."

But isn't that the trap you fall into when you begin the "ahh why can't we all just get along" chorus?