5 ms·

How exactly are you supposed to value the humanity of someone who doesn't value the humanity of others? Put another way, why tolerate the intolerant?

naasking 8y ago
> Put another way, why tolerate the intolerant? Because unless the intolerance are initiating or calling for violence, that's literally what being tolerant means.
- ionised 8y ago
  Bringing the intolerant into your tolerant fold is self-defeating. All you're doing is introducing a poison pill and giving it acceptance. There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views. The latter group deserves no tolerance, because it means the inevitable destruction of your own group. How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18? Do you tolerate all these groups and their views? I sure as shit don't.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Bringing the intolerant into your tolerant fold is self-defeating. So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. > There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views. Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". > How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18? I'm tolerant of any view that doesn't call for violence. ISIS should be fought because they are violent, not because they have intolerant views. The KKK and Combat 18 should be fought when they engage in or call for violence, not because they are intolerant of non-whites. There's no grey area here, the dividing line of what constitutes tolerance is quite clear: violence and inciting violence is unacceptable, and anything else is permissible free speech that should be fought only with speech. That's the very bedrock of peaceful democratic republics.
    - ionised 8y ago
      > So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? I'm totally fine with Muslims. Most Muslims have met are very tolerant because they don't take their religion too seriously, like most Christians. They pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, ignoring the bits don't jive with modern life and their personal attitudes towards life, sex and other people. Their basic human instincts always beat their religion in the end. I might think their religion is a batshit crazy comfort blanket just like I do Judaism and Christianity, but that doesn't make them intolerant (in my view). Of course some will use their religion to excuse their intolerance. That;s true of many groups. In that case I'd rather just not engage with those people. Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Or perhaps you are suggesting that all Muslims are intolerant? Because I sure as shit am not. I can't see why else you you would accuse me of something I never said unless you yourself have made these prejudicial equivalences in your head. > Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". Of course violence is a part of it. How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? The violently intolerant are the ones I'm talking about. ISIS, KKK, white supremacists, neo-nazise etc. I won't engage with these people, but they often leave you no choice. I have no tolerance for them, just like they don't for me.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? It's the natural conclusion of not wanting to introduce intolerance into a tolerant milieu. But you've now qualified this claim with the concept of treating people as individuals. So will you extend the same courtesy to white supremacists? No doubt there are white supremacists who also don't take it too seriously, and similarly pick and choose which parts they want to believe based on their "basic human instincts [that] always beat their religion in the end". Somehow I doubt it. For some reason, the intolerant white supremacist beliefs don't get the same benefit of the doubt as other intolerant religions. You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest we should treat people as individuals and not judge them on their adherence to some professed beliefs, and then turn around and do the same to another group of people. > Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Really? Which part exactly? Be precise. > How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? By convincing everyone that you're right and they're wrong of course. If you convince every white supremacist that they're wrong (or enough of them), then white supremacy ends.

naasking 8y ago

> Put another way, why tolerate the intolerant? Because unless the intolerance are initiating or calling for violence, that's literally what being tolerant means.

ionised 8y ago
Bringing the intolerant into your tolerant fold is self-defeating. All you're doing is introducing a poison pill and giving it acceptance. There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views. The latter group deserves no tolerance, because it means the inevitable destruction of your own group. How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18? Do you tolerate all these groups and their views? I sure as shit don't.
- naasking 8y ago
  > Bringing the intolerant into your tolerant fold is self-defeating. So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. > There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views. Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". > How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18? I'm tolerant of any view that doesn't call for violence. ISIS should be fought because they are violent, not because they have intolerant views. The KKK and Combat 18 should be fought when they engage in or call for violence, not because they are intolerant of non-whites. There's no grey area here, the dividing line of what constitutes tolerance is quite clear: violence and inciting violence is unacceptable, and anything else is permissible free speech that should be fought only with speech. That's the very bedrock of peaceful democratic republics.
  - ionised 8y ago
    > So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies. Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? I'm totally fine with Muslims. Most Muslims have met are very tolerant because they don't take their religion too seriously, like most Christians. They pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, ignoring the bits don't jive with modern life and their personal attitudes towards life, sex and other people. Their basic human instincts always beat their religion in the end. I might think their religion is a batshit crazy comfort blanket just like I do Judaism and Christianity, but that doesn't make them intolerant (in my view). Of course some will use their religion to excuse their intolerance. That;s true of many groups. In that case I'd rather just not engage with those people. Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Or perhaps you are suggesting that all Muslims are intolerant? Because I sure as shit am not. I can't see why else you you would accuse me of something I never said unless you yourself have made these prejudicial equivalences in your head. > Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views". Of course violence is a part of it. How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? The violently intolerant are the ones I'm talking about. ISIS, KKK, white supremacists, neo-nazise etc. I won't engage with these people, but they often leave you no choice. I have no tolerance for them, just like they don't for me.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? It's the natural conclusion of not wanting to introduce intolerance into a tolerant milieu. But you've now qualified this claim with the concept of treating people as individuals. So will you extend the same courtesy to white supremacists? No doubt there are white supremacists who also don't take it too seriously, and similarly pick and choose which parts they want to believe based on their "basic human instincts [that] always beat their religion in the end". Somehow I doubt it. For some reason, the intolerant white supremacist beliefs don't get the same benefit of the doubt as other intolerant religions. You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest we should treat people as individuals and not judge them on their adherence to some professed beliefs, and then turn around and do the same to another group of people. > Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Really? Which part exactly? Be precise. > How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter? By convincing everyone that you're right and they're wrong of course. If you convince every white supremacist that they're wrong (or enough of them), then white supremacy ends.