• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

When does intolerance become ok?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,677
6,490
136
That’s a pretty illiberal thing to say. The left used to proudly proclaim that it may not agree with what you have to say but they would defend your right to say it. That seems to be lost.
No its not. Have you been watching more Fox than usual as of late?
Why its not ok : Already covered by libs in this thread, dont do a slow and taj and "logically" conclude this must be the actions of all libs. Its stupid. Dont be stupid.
Why its ok : You can argue that Tucker is instrumental in the state tv propaganda machinery that is ultimatly spearheading the US into a fascists state and consequently civil war... Now if you believe this to be true, would you not be protesting too? Next question, why dont you think.this to be true?
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,476
4,153
126
I remember reading a science fiction novel or story about a intolerant and violent individual who was confined on a planet of loving robots dedicated to his care, robots he could maim insult and destroy at will but would be repaired and continue to love and care for him.

That, I think, would be a wonderful fate for all intolerant people. One of the most wonderful experiences a person can have, in my opinion, is the experience that leads to the recognition of the impotence of rage. It is a place where the ego can die like a spent salmon.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,153
5,205
126
That’s a pretty illiberal thing to say. The left used to proudly proclaim that it may not agree with what you have to say but they would defend your right to say it. That seems to be lost.
Yeah. Thing is we already had a debate about the Nazi thing.

60 million people died in that argument because we let things go too far in the first place.

So no. We won't defend your right to say whatever you want. That road leads to a lot of people dying.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Yeah. Thing is we already had a debate about the Nazi thing.

60 million people died in that argument because we let things go too far in the first place.

So no. We won't defend your right to say whatever you want. That road leads to a lot of people dying.
What is your logic here? Nazis and Nazi beliefs are bad, but, are you saying that once an argument has been had, its done and everyone should move on? I think you need some nuance because that works for dismissing the Nazi debate, but, it also dismisses anything that society has accepted which would limit social progress. There was a time when the debate about gay marriage had been settled, yet, had we not continued we would not have it today.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,106
24,644
136
Not trying to claim victim status. That's the domain of progressives.

Trying to point out that everyone loudly proclaims their principles until they actually feel bound by them. Then they appeal for exemptions, claim extenuating circumstances, etc.
You were exactly attempting to claim victim status and you know it. Don't pull a DSF, 'who, me?' here, own the fact that the cornerstone of modern american conservatism is that you're perpetual victims.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,476
4,153
126
What is your logic here? Nazis and Nazi beliefs are bad, but, are you saying that once an argument has been had, its done and everyone should move on? I think you need some nuance because that works for dismissing the Nazi debate, but, it also dismisses anything that society has accepted which would limit social progress. There was a time when the debate about gay marriage had been settled, yet, had we not continued we would not have it today.
So true because Trump Nazism is OK. We just need to evolve the population far enough to see that. Maybe the deaths of 60 million disagreers Americans will change people’s minds.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
21,025
13,091
136
I don't have to tolerate intolerance.

If you want to be a racist, sexist or bigoted asshole feel free to express your dumb ass opinions and also prepare to get your feelings fucked. Because guess what? At that point its my right to fuck your feelings.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
So true because Trump Nazism is OK. We just need to evolve the population far enough to see that. Maybe the deaths of 60 million disagreers Americans will change people’s minds.
Wow, that A you brag about that you got in college is really paying off here. Well done.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,153
5,205
126
Agreed. Did you miss all the other words that were written? They would seem important to give you an understanding of what was asked.
Well your argument seems to revolve on Nazism becoming acceptable through social change.

Which is kinda what every right thinking person is trying to avoid.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Well your argument seems to revolve on Nazism becoming acceptable through social change.

Which is kinda what every right thinking person is trying to avoid.
No. Weird that is your understanding.

My argument is that your position would not only throw out the bathwater, but the baby as well. When your position is that any argument society has had and a side has won, we should not have that argument again. The problem with that is it would also mean that any immoral position that society holds would and should be enforced would would limit social progress. I then suggested that you take a more nuanced approach that would allow us to still condemn Nazis and Nazi beliefs while still challenging society's immoral positions.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
There's no effort or maturity required in dismissing opponents as monsters. It's easy, lazy, and betrays a childish unwillingness to extend to opposing intellects and ideas the respect that you demand be shown to yours.
Indeed. Here's the most powerful person in politics doing exactly what you say in the most hateful way, his SOP.

I'm not feeling tolerant.

Half hour rant of what most Republicans support and vote for. Here is the most hateful person to hold Office. The greatest political disgrace of our time.

 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,153
5,205
126
No. Weird that is your understanding.

My argument is that your position would not only throw out the bathwater, but the baby as well. When your position is that any argument society has had and a side has won, we should not have that argument again. The problem with that is it would also mean that any immoral position that society holds would and should be enforced would would limit social progress. I then suggested that you take a more nuanced approach that would allow us to still condemn Nazis and Nazi beliefs while still challenging society's immoral positions.
The bolded isnt my position.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
The bolded isnt my position.
Yes, it is.

Yeah. Thing is we already had a debate about the Nazi thing. (Already had the debate, we being society)

60 million people died in that argument because we let things go too far in the first place. (It went badly)

So no. We won't defend your right to say whatever you want. That road leads to a lot of people dying. (Having the debate leads to 60 million dead)

So unless your argument is 60 million is the threshold, the understanding would be if we had an argument, it went badly, we dont have the arguments again.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,279
3,636
136
Being tolerant of others is a fine thing when it comes to forming and upholding a strong unified nation that can not only protect itself, it can also protect others who like a democratic/capitalist way of life where free speech, freedom of choice, religion and the ability to choose our leaders without fear are inalienable rights.

BUT, we now have a party in our midst that promotes hate and fear of others who don't look like themselves, isolationism, nationalism, tribalism, divisiveness, racism, trashing the Rule of Law, consorting with a known enemy of the State, trickle down economics and the belief that they have the right to tell others within our nation that they must conform to their religious beliefs via passing laws to force their will on everyone else.

That right there is the essence of intolerance, of avarice, of hatred, of the corruption of our system of gov't in order to promote and celebrate the wants and needs of a narcissistic despot and somehow we are led to believe that we should tolerate all of this crap that divides us instead of what should unite us?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,153
5,205
126
Yes, it is.

Yeah. Thing is we already had a debate about the Nazi thing. (Already had the debate, we being society)

60 million people died in that argument because we let things go too far in the first place. (It went badly)

So no. We won't defend your right to say whatever you want. That road leads to a lot of people dying. (Having the debate leads to 60 million dead)

So unless your argument is 60 million is the threshold, the understanding would be if we had an argument, it went badly, we dont have the arguments again.
Thats not "any argument society has". Nazism isnt the same as the right for gay people to marry.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I read him as saying that issues can and should be revisited at need, but not repetitive rehashings of the SAME argument.
That rehashing is completely needed though. I'm not talking about daily, but, society does need to examine its beliefs even if they are quite old. Its how we have progressed. How long had the debate around gay marriage gone on? It was pushed politically for a long time. Laws were enacted to try and reinforce holding it back, yet, because the debate had been done over and over, it finally got through.

That said, reason needs to be used. When there is nothing new or unique, the debate should not go back to the topics, but, should center around why it would be worth starting the debate again. To say that we already had a debate, it went poorly, so we should never do it again seems way too simplistic.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Thats not "any argument society has". Nazism isnt the same as the right for gay people to marry.
In the abstraction of the argument, they are both subjects that were debated that had negative externalities. I am glad we had both debates, and I am glad one lost and the other won out in the US.

You are also throwing in a new bit, which is "any argument". How can you tell when one subject is worth fighting for, and another is not?
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
The real issue isn't specifically tolerance or intolerance. It is that both sides seem to think it is the other that is being intolerant. What is strange to me is that it seems pretty evenly split 50/50 between the two. They are both angry, but for different reasons and have zero interest in seeing the other sides perspective. In a ....normal society, the majority should be somewhere in the middle, but it seems that as of the last 4-5 years more are at the extremes. If anyone thought Trump winning was a fluke, I think the jury is still out given the midterms. There seem to be quite a few people who are completely fine with Trump being in charge, which is odd, because I personally only know a handful who will admit it these days.

A few things many people seem to not completely understand but continuously seems to come up from both sides, and if they just took the middle approach instead of the extremes they would see that 'normal' people want the same thing:

1. Being against illegal immigration isn't racist...and it also doesn't give you a right to be racist or spread racist rhetoric.
2. Being pro-America does not make you racist...and it also doesn't give you the right to be a racist or complete asshat to everyone else who doesn't agree with your beliefs.
3. Our government sucks. They are not your friends, none of them - red and blue is antiquated and needs to be overhauled. They no longer work for the people, they work for themselves to further their careers. They are the rich and ultimately they have no idea what most Americans need or want. Voting based on party lines does no one any favors. Vote based on their career choices and beliefs that align with yours rather than which party they claim to be and then you HOPE they do right or at least try to. You then hold them accountable for those choices. You do not continue to stand by them while they laugh in your face.
4. Ask yourself if you expect the President of the country to be held to the highest standards and speak the truth, regardless what someone else says or does. Should that person lead by example or stoop to low levels and be petty and insulting.

There's probably more, but I think I'm mostly preaching to the choir here.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,153
5,205
126
In the abstraction of the argument, they are both subjects that were debated that had negative externalities. I am glad we had both debates, and I am glad one lost and the other won out in the US.
You cant abstract both those arguments. One of them called for the extermination and subjugation of untold millions of people and led to the deaths of 60 million people, the other was about gay people getting married. One of those things you can have a debate about.

You are also throwing in a new bit, which is "any argument". How can you tell when one subject is worth fighting for, and another is not?
My argument was specific to Nazism, you added "any argument".
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
That rehashing is completely needed though.
I don't think you take my meaning. Here's an illustrative hypothetical.

Me: It's was wrong to gas the Jews.

X: I don't think that happened.

Me: What???

X: I don't think that happened

Me: I'm out.

A day later...

Person Y: Wow there was a pro-Nazi rally bragging about killing Jews. They were praising the gassing in Germany.

X: I don't think that happened.


And there you go. The nonsense contributions, repetitive without thought statements, dancing on the head of a pin, the "well what if Hitler only gassed adult men, that wouldn't be so bad". That is speaking without any constructive purpose, not a continuation of a rational argument (as the term is properly used). It's just saying the same old kinds of pointless things over and over and over...

I would prefer not to deal with that because as I've said elsewhere it's as useless at tits on a boar hog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
You cant abstract both those arguments. One of them called for the extermination and subjugation of untold millions of people and led to the deaths of 60 million people, the other was about gay people getting married. One of those things you can have a debate about.



My argument was specific to Nazism, you added "any argument".
You cant see how those could be both alike and yet very different at the same time? Why should we have a debate about gay marriage? Why should it have ever been illegal in the first place?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS