A thread about tolerance.

[Amused]

I have a confession to make. After much thought I must admit I'm not "tolerant." I'm not even "accepting." I just honestly don't give a single fsck what color you are, what god you worship, if any, what gender you identify with, what sex you are, and I most certainly give no thoughts at all about who you have consensual sex with.

To say I "tolerate" it would imply I'm "putting up" with something I normally would not. Like tolerating that annoying bastard crinkling a chip bag next to me in a movie theater. Yes he's annoying me. Yes I want to tear the bag out of his hand, pour the chips out on his lap and scream "There, fscker, now shut the fsck up!" But I don't. I choose to "tolerate" it in the spirit of civility.

To say I'm accepting would imply you're an outsider to my world. You're not. We're all on the same fscking planet.

No, the honest answer is: I simply don't give a fsck. Have no reason to give a fsck and certainly hope you're giving no fscks how I live my life either. Because even if you are, I (you guessed it) don't give a fsck.

Now fsck off and die.

 

[Blackjack200]

I only have .001 mm of tolerance, to be precise.

 

[glenn1]

Better be careful or you'll go full libertarian on us. You certainly can't be a progressive since they'd pass a nanny state law about making bag noises in the theater (or even outlawing potato chips for your own health). And you can't be a conservative without the obsession on the issues of sexual attraction and gender identity, gotta go full puritan on those folks "for the children" and 'family values' or whatever shit.

 

[Zaap]

I have a confession to make. After much thought I must admit I'm not "tolerant." I'm not even "accepting." I just honestly don't give a single fsck what color you are, what god you worship, if any, what gender you identify with, what sex you are, and I most certainly give no thoughts at all about who you have consensual sex with.

You have it backwards. The bolded is actually the most 'tolerant' a person can be. To simply NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK about these sorts of traits in others.

The problem you're apparently grappling with is you've accepted the dimwit PC definition of 'tolerance' which demands people feel compelled to give a fuck about these things, and (worse) start lumping people into groups based on these things, and having pity for people based on these things and feeling that NOT giving a fuck is actually being intolerant.

Simple truth: a lot of people take themselves WAY WAY WAY WAY the fuck too seriously based on useless traits such as you outlined, and either directly expect you (or on behalf of PC nitwits wringing their hands) expect you to also take their useless traits WAY WAY WAY WAY too seriously as well. "HOW DARE you not take my gender/race/sex-pref/color/creed/religion/this/that/theother into consideration with EVERYTHING you do towards me and everything you say!!! You bigot!/---phobe!/---ist!!"

By the way, you're not special for any of this. It's called being NORMAL for a very large percentage of people. On the fringes either side are those that take the mentioned traits of others too seriously, as either a PC-pity-party-crutch on the one side (a form of INequality btw) and those that actually hate others based on taking those things too seriously. (INequality in the opposite direction.)

If everyone would GTF over both themselves, and others- it'd be a better world. Call it 'tolerance' or just what it should be, normalcy.

 

[IronWing]

I only have .001 mm of tolerance, to be precise.

Your stole my joke.

Tolerance is another way to say you have a loose screw.

 

[pauldun170]

South Park already covered this in detail.

 

[Amused]

South Park already covered this in detail.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I only have .001 mm of tolerance, to be precise.

That's a pretty good tolerance for many things.

 

[Commodus]

AT&T's CEO (yeah, of all people) gave a speech where he smartly argued that tolerance isn't enough -- you need acceptance.

Now that doesn't mean bending over backwards to revere other groups, but it does mean actually respecting them. Reject stereotypes, even the positive ones. Remember that they're just ordinary people trying to make their way through life -- they rarely want little more than to express themselves openly and enjoy the same freedoms as you do. In short... relax.

 

[crashtech]

AT&T's CEO (yeah, of all people) gave a speech where he smartly argued that tolerance isn't enough -- you need acceptance.

Now that doesn't mean bending over backwards to revere other groups, but it does mean actually respecting them. Reject stereotypes, even the positive ones. Remember that they're just ordinary people trying to make their way through life -- they rarely want little more than to express themselves openly and enjoy the same freedoms as you do. In short... relax.

I think respect for others is something we give up too easily, since it seems almost impossible to recover once gone.

 

[Perknose]

AT&T's CEO (yeah, of all people) gave a speech where he smartly argued that tolerance isn't enough -- you need acceptance.

Now that doesn't mean bending over backwards to revere other groups, but it does mean actually respecting them.

You either didn't read, or didn't fully comprehend what the OP said about "acceptance."

 

[Vic]

You have it backwards. The bolded is actually the most 'tolerant' a person can be. To simply NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK about these sorts of traits in others.

The problem you're apparently grappling with is you've accepted the dimwit PC definition of 'tolerance' which demands people feel compelled to give a fuck about these things, and (worse) start lumping people into groups based on these things, and having pity for people based on these things and feeling that NOT giving a fuck is actually being intolerant.

Simple truth: a lot of people take themselves WAY WAY WAY WAY the fuck too seriously based on useless traits such as you outlined, and either directly expect you (or on behalf of PC nitwits wringing their hands) expect you to also take their useless traits WAY WAY WAY WAY too seriously as well. "HOW DARE you not take my gender/race/sex-pref/color/creed/religion/this/that/theother into consideration with EVERYTHING you do towards me and everything you say!!! You bigot!/---phobe!/---ist!!"

By the way, you're not special for any of this. It's called being NORMAL for a very large percentage of people. On the fringes either side are those that take the mentioned traits of others too seriously, as either a PC-pity-party-crutch on the one side (a form of INequality btw) and those that actually hate others based on taking those things too seriously. (INequality in the opposite direction.)

If everyone would GTF over both themselves, and others- it'd be a better world. Call it 'tolerance' or just what it should be, normalcy.

You take what people say about you way the fuck too seriously. Everyone, PC and anti-PC, demands that other people give a fuck about whatever it is that they give a fuck about, and lump people into arbitrary groups according to who they self-identify with and who they don't self-identify with. This isn't a PC, liberal, or SJW thing. It's human nature, and the right is just as guilty of it as the left.
The differences lie in all that identity bullshit which, once again, is human nature.

 

[Commodus]

You either didn't read, or didn't fully comprehend what the OP said about "acceptance."

Well, there's a degree of similarity. If he honestly doesn't care what your race, gender identity or religion are, then he's not getting in your face about it. He just sees you as a human being deserving of respect, which is how it should be.

 

[sandorski]

A Chip bag I can tolerate.. A Sunchips bag, someone is leaving the theatre on a stretcher.

 

[NAC4EV]

And the news part of this thread is where????

 

[justoh]

Way too vague. Wayyy too negative, with all that not giving a fuck stuff. Let's all give more! Other than that, mostly nonsense. 0/10.

 

[Moonbeam]

You take what people say about you way the fuck too seriously. Everyone, PC and anti-PC, demands that other people give a fuck about whatever it is that they give a fuck about, and lump people into arbitrary groups according to who they self-identify with and who they don't self-identify with. This isn't a PC, liberal, or SJW thing. It's human nature, and the right is just as guilty of it as the left.
The differences lie in all that identity bullshit which, once again, is human nature.

Why is it human nature. Why would anybody identify with anything other than him or her self. Were we not born being only ourselves. I think you miss a deep truth by just accepting this as human nature. No other animal does this. It is possible only, I believe, because we use language to create meanings that have no real reality, meanings such as those implied by put downs we got as children that told us we would only be loved if we were somebody other than ourselves. It is this inculcated split in conscious awareness between who we pretend to be to escape shame and who we were that was our real nature, this need to wear a fig leaf whereas every other animal never feels ugly. Nobody is born feeling that way.

 

[Amused]

Way too vague. Wayyy too negative, with all that not giving a fuck stuff. Let's all give more! Other than that, mostly nonsense. 0/10.

Since when is being carefree a negative thing?

I'm so sad you didn't like it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Since when is being carefree a negative thing?

I'm so sad you didn't like it.

Well here's the thing. Being carefree means you haven't taken to heart that you are just wrong. You need to be tolerant. Well no. You need to be accepting. Well what I really mean to say is that you need to embrace what I tell you or you will be ostracised in ways that matter to you, or at least make the "rightthinking" (sic) satisfied. Conform or be cast out.

Yeah I don't give a crap either to the frustration of some

 

[justoh]

Since when is being carefree a negative thing?

since like ~200k years ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

since like ~200k years ago.

There is a difference between carefree and careless.

 

[justoh]

There is a difference between carefree and careless.

There's also this....

 

[Vic]

Why is it human nature. Why would anybody identify with anything other than him or her self. Were we not born being only ourselves. I think you miss a deep truth by just accepting this as human nature. No other animal does this. It is possible only, I believe, because we use language to create meanings that have no real reality, meanings such as those implied by put downs we got as children that told us we would only be loved if we were somebody other than ourselves. It is this inculcated split in conscious awareness between who we pretend to be to escape shame and who we were that was our real nature, this need to wear a fig leaf whereas every other animal never feels ugly. Nobody is born feeling that way.

We are born feeling this way. The human mind can't conceptualize 7.5 billion individuals. It simply lacks the processing power. So it lumps them into groups. And those groups that a person can identify with are "us," and the ones that they don't identify with are "them." After that occurs is when a person's experiences lead to what you're saying.

 

[Moonbeam]

We are born feeling this way. The human mind can't conceptualize 7.5 billion individuals. It simply lacks the processing power. So it lumps them into groups. And those groups that a person can identify with are "us," and the ones that they don't identify with are "them." After that occurs is when a person's experiences lead to what you're saying.

Your words contain within themselves their own contradiction. You are describing the condition of a number of people you claim to be inconceivable based on an understanding of yourself in relation to a few of them. Your conclusion is that we are all the same, that this is what we do. This awareness of sameness changes everything. It is the person of understanding who says, "Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou. Fear as thought divides. Love unites. It was our love that putdowns made us hide. Can you feel that pain? I see in you a burning light I believe couldn't be there if you didn't.

 

[Zaap]

You take what people say about you way the fuck too seriously.

No I don't, and this has not a thing to do with the subject. You're going on about things that are entirely besides the point. (Besides being wrong about most of it.)

Everyone, PC and anti-PC, demands that other people give a fuck about whatever it is that they give a fuck about, and lump people into arbitrary groups according to who they self-identify with and who they don't self-identify with.

That's a ridiculous false statement, based on the ACTUAL subject of the thread. Non-PC people do not go around demanding others 'give a fuck' about the arbitrary traits that the OP listed as things he simply doesn't give a fuck about. Nor do they misuse the term 'tolerance' to mean focusing on those differences about people, rather than TRUE tolerance, which IS actually not giving a flying fuck about them.

Most of the 'human nature' stuff you're talking about isn't the same thing at all. Humans don't actually NEED to comprehend billions of other humans, in the real world of their everyday lives. I read once that for most of human history, the average human being never encountered more than 150 other humans in their entire lives. It's only in the most recent of history- late 20th century really- that we're as mobile and connected as we are today.

The whole thing about fearing the 'other' isn't actually based on stupid arbitrary traits.

For example: if you come home to find a stranger camped out on your doorstep, you don't dismiss it based on stupid arbitrary stuff. "Oh, this person is the same gender/race/religion/etc as me... NO PROBLEM!" All the PC bullshit matters not- it's that it's a human being you don't know, and has no business on your property without an invite or legit reason to be there.

So of course there things that give humans REAL reason to separate people you KNOW and identify with, from people you don't, but it's not what's being discussed.

The OP expressed not feeling he's 'tolerant' because he doesn't give a shit about traits of other people -that actually DON"T MATTER a fucking hill of beans. What I pointed out is that actual tolerance ISN"T the opposite of that- that is, GIVING a shit about traits of others that don't actually matter a hill of beans. True tolerance IS the not giving a shit.

Here's perhaps an example you can grasp.

If someone tells me I must be tolerant of a blonde woman, I must not treat her like a bimbo because she's blonde- I REJECT the notion that this is being tolerant. I'm not going to have 'tolerance' for someone because they are blonde. To accept this notion, would be for me to actually do the OPPOSITE of what's being asked of me- to think of this person as being somehow likely to be a stupid bimbo because she's blonde, and resist some 'natural temptation' to treat her accordingly. But because I already don't actually judge or give a shit about the color of anyone's hair- I don't need this bullshit notion of tolerance. Worse, I recognize that it's actually a form of discrimination, even well-intentioned. The color of someone's hair is completely arbitrary. A useless trait. It requires NO form of tolerance.

Now, you may be able to understand that.

If so, perhaps you can understand that in an ideal world, that truly was tolerant, there's no need for the same request for 'tolerance' on behalf of someone's skin color, sexual ID, religion, creed, etc etc etc. It's better if *everyone* simply didn't give a fuck about such things, and moved on.