3 ms·

I think most people would equate "tolerance" with "non-antagonizing" in the general case. It's hard to claim that actively antagonizing & stigmatizing somebody

I think most people would equate "tolerance" with "non-antagonizing" in the general case. It's hard to claim that actively antagonizing & stigmatizing somebody for their beliefs (not just reasonably arguing against the beliefs themselves) counts as tolerant of others' beliefs. It exactly means that no matter how subjectively and personally odious somebody's beliefs are to you, you can still respect their personhood, and evaluate any associated business & products at face value. "Tolerance" does not mean enforcement for or against selected beliefs. Waging a stigmatizing crusade against a belief is enforcement. The moment you think you can deem and enforce absolute right & wrong upon others, you open yourself up to it happening to you without defense. That is not the path of liberty.

couchand 10y ago
There are beliefs that it is fair to reasonably argue with and then there are statements that defy common decency. At some point offensive statements should be shunned, not engaged with.
Frondo 10y ago
Of course I get to deem and enforce what I think is right and wrong, using tools like words and association. What on earth kind of law do you want to set up where I can't preferentially trade with people whose opinions I like, or preferentially not trade with people whose opinions I don't? Again, tolerance means I don't want to imprison or kill people with distasteful opinions; it doesn't mean I have to like them or their distasteful opinions. People can be bigots, they can be jerks. Go nuts, folks, be bigots or jerks, I don't care. But I'm not going to trade with bigots or jerks, I'm not going to hire them, and I'm sure as hell not going to say "hey, you're a bigot and a jerk but tolerance so let's have a beer". Some people have no place in my life, and the beliefs they hold are a big determining factor in that decision. If they really wanna be my friend or business partner, they can change their beliefs.
- white-flame 10y ago
  > Some people have no place in my life, and the beliefs they hold are a big determining factor in that decision. That is pretty much the definition of not tolerating a person, to remove a person from your life, not tolerating having their existence in your sphere. If it's mostly based on their beliefs, then it's an example of not tolerating that belief. You're perfectly fine to do that, as people do, but then you can't claim that you're tolerant of others' beliefs just because you happen not to be killing or imprisoning them. > it doesn't mean I have to like them or their distasteful opinions. Tolerance does NOT mean liking them! I keep hearing false dichotomy over and over. To be decent and civil to a person, to tolerate their beliefs existing around you, does not require condoning them. It's simply being a decent human being and not being an overprovoked reactionary, intolerantly policing all others around themselves, determining what others are not allowed to be like.

couchand 10y ago

There are beliefs that it is fair to reasonably argue with and then there are statements that defy common decency. At some point offensive statements should be shunned, not engaged with.

Frondo 10y ago

Of course I get to deem and enforce what I think is right and wrong, using tools like words and association. What on earth kind of law do you want to set up where I can't preferentially trade with people whose opinions I like, or preferentially not trade with people whose opinions I don't? Again, tolerance means I don't want to imprison or kill people with distasteful opinions; it doesn't mean I have to like them or their distasteful opinions. People can be bigots, they can be jerks. Go nuts, folks, be bigots or jerks, I don't care. But I'm not going to trade with bigots or jerks, I'm not going to hire them, and I'm sure as hell not going to say "hey, you're a bigot and a jerk but tolerance so let's have a beer". Some people have no place in my life, and the beliefs they hold are a big determining factor in that decision. If they really wanna be my friend or business partner, they can change their beliefs.

white-flame 10y ago
> Some people have no place in my life, and the beliefs they hold are a big determining factor in that decision. That is pretty much the definition of not tolerating a person, to remove a person from your life, not tolerating having their existence in your sphere. If it's mostly based on their beliefs, then it's an example of not tolerating that belief. You're perfectly fine to do that, as people do, but then you can't claim that you're tolerant of others' beliefs just because you happen not to be killing or imprisoning them. > it doesn't mean I have to like them or their distasteful opinions. Tolerance does NOT mean liking them! I keep hearing false dichotomy over and over. To be decent and civil to a person, to tolerate their beliefs existing around you, does not require condoning them. It's simply being a decent human being and not being an overprovoked reactionary, intolerantly policing all others around themselves, determining what others are not allowed to be like.