4 ms·
It's pretty well established at this point that those who scream the loudest about how important "tolerance" is often prove to be among the most intolerant in p
by Pacabel 13y ago
It's pretty well established at this point that those who scream the loudest about how important "tolerance" is often prove to be among the most intolerant in practice.
The same is holding true for those who are against "discrimination". They'll often have absolutely no qualms about using one form of discrimination in their quest to bring retribution to somebody else who may have engaged in something they consider to be discriminatory behavior.
- vdaniuk 13y agoCould you please provide facts and citations that support your claim that "those who scream the loudest... are the most intolerant in practice"?
- Pacabel 13y agoWell, this whole incident involving Eich is a pretty good example.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- coldpie 13y agoIf the only thing that is not tolerated is intolerance, intolerance will cease to exist.
- Pacabel 13y agoHow exactly do you figure that? The act of not tolerating intolerance is itself intolerance. It will always be around, if we take your approach. The only way to full tolerance is to be tolerant of intolerance.
- dhmholley 13y agoAre people still blowing this whistle? Tolerance for people is not the same as tolerance for speech, or tolerance for actions. You are not a victim if people disapprove of your bigotry - your speech may be protected, but you are not protected from the consequences of your speech (and that includes the opinions of others). People will find any reason to view themselves as victims when something they do or a person they agree with is criticised. That people are crying about "discrimination", because someone who actively worked to oppress people was rightly criticised for those actions, quite frankly astounds me. Besides which, people aren't just criticising him for seeking to strip one the basic and fundamental liberties a modern society gives its citizens, purely on the basis of who they are (which he is entitled to do). They're criticising Mozilla, a company which strives towards the principles of openness and inclusiveness, for picking someone to represent them who doesn't represent the values of the organisation.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoSo you show your inclusiveness by ousting those whose conscience conflicts with your political views?
- dhmholley 13y agoInclusiveness means not discriminating against people based on who they are. It's the very simple idea that white people, black people, gay people and straight people are all people - they are entitled the same rights and the same protections. Inclusiveness doesn't mean that you have to tolerate a person's actions. Damn right I'm going to criticise someone whose actions hurt people - they're not entitled to have me agree with their "conscience", nor are they entitled to my support for their actions. Do you understand how discrimination against a person and condemnation of things that a person does are separate concepts?