When does intolerance become ok?

[ImpulsE69]

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.

Do you think that type of interaction is more common now than in the past? Or that those people are just more vocal with their ignorance.

 

[WelshBloke]

You cant see how those could be both alike and yet very different at the same time?

No. I cant see how both of those could be alike.

Why should we have a debate about gay marriage? Why should it have ever been illegal in the first place?

Why shouldnt we have a debate about gay marriage? I can explain why we shouldn't have a debate about Nazism being acceptable.

 

[mect]

I think we first need to define tolerance before a meaningful discussion can be had. I'll work with the following as a starting point.


2a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own

b: the act of allowing something

From this perspective, I would say we tolerate intolerance up to the point that real harm is done to another. At the point where a persons intolerance begins to cause harm, I think it is appropriate to ramp up intolerance commensurate with the level of harm caused. Historical context is relevant. This is why we classify some crimes as hate crimes. If we have Nazi's marching in the streets, I'd say a proper level of intolerance would be to counter march. If Nazi's start harassing individuals, we prosecute them.

There are a few challenges to this perspective. For one thing, it presumes that intolerant activities towards victims are supported by the minority. As the number of people that support intolerance towards victims increases, so does their power to cause real harm, and this must be accounted for in the calculation. I think this is a major reason the number of protests and counter protests have increased significantly since Trump took office. Trump has proliferated support for Nazis and other white supremacist groups. As a result, I think it is appropriate that our level of tolerance towards such groups diminishes.

 

[realibrad]

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.

I agree that not all debate is needed and or productive. What you gave was something that clearly is not a debate though. That is one personal disbelieving evidence and not putting forth anything new.

But, the way gay marriage eventually got to be a thing, was people spreading the idea though argument and swaying people to change their minds, or, spreading around the idea to new people.

 

[realibrad]

No. I cant see how both of those could be alike.

They were both moral issues where people disagreed on which side was the moral side. You don't see them as alike in that broad abstraction?

Why shouldnt we have a debate about gay marriage? I can explain why we shouldn't have a debate about Nazism being acceptable.

By your reasoning we should not have had the debate as in the past it was relatively well decided that it should not happen. The debate to have it caused harm, just not anywhere close to the harm that WWII caused. However, your argument was that if we already had the debate, and it caused negative out comes, we don't need to have it again when its been decided. That would have caused us not to progress had you held that position and it was enforced in the past.

 

[WelshBloke]

They were both moral issues where people disagreed on which side was the moral side. You don't see them as alike in that broad abstraction?

No. One is an ideology where discrimination and dehumanisation is intrinsic the other is asking for rights already applied to most of society be extended to everyone. How you can say that both those are valid subjects for moral augments as to their worth is troubling.

By your reasoning we should not have had the debate as in the past it was relatively well decided that it should not happen. The debate to have it caused harm, just not anywhere close to the harm that WWII caused. However, your argument was that if we already had the debate, and it caused negative out comes, we don't need to have it again when its been decided. That would have caused us not to progress had you held that position and it was enforced in the past.

Thats not my argument. Thats an argument you have invented.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do you think that type of interaction is more common now than in the past? Or that those people are just more vocal with their ignorance.

My perception is that it is more common, but without data and being an element in the set of those who have political perspectives, I'm excluded from viewing the situation with absolute objectivity.

I think that what people are dealing with is so bizarre and extreme as well as unprecedented, that people who would like to present a counterargument to those who disapprove of the current power in the WH, but can't find a rational basis. What then? Remain silent? That won't happen and being constrained by beliefs instead of the desire for truth, they must divert in some way even to the point of being absurd.

So to answer your question I think it's not that people wouldn't have more reasonable points expressed in an appropriate way, but they are incapable with the reality which exists. They play the hand they are dealt and lose badly in terms of making a point as well as whatever credibility they might have had. As absolutely awful is what they have then that is what they must defend and that isn't a good look for them.

Verbose, but personally I like context.

 

[realibrad]

No. One is an ideology where discrimination and dehumanisation is intrinsic the other is asking for rights already applied to most of society be extended to everyone. How you can say that both those are valid subjects for moral augments as to their worth is troubling.

You listed the differences, but, that does not mean they cannot also be similar in that they were both debated. You already established that we debated Nazism, and we know that there was a debate about gay marriage. That makes them both things debated and as such they have that one thing in common. They are both things worth debating as the debate meant we stopped the discrimination and dehumanizing things, as well as gave the right of marriage to gay people. How can you say they were not worth having?

 

[realibrad]

My perception is that it is more common, but without data and being an element in the set of those who have political perspectives, I'm excluded from viewing the situation with absolute objectivity.

I think that what people are dealing with is so bizarre and extreme as well as unprecedented, that people who would like to present a counterargument to those who disapprove of the current power in the WH, but can't find a rational basis. What then? Remain silent? That won't happen and being constrained by beliefs instead of the desire for truth, they must divert in some way even to the point of being absurd.

So to answer your question I think it's not that people wouldn't have more reasonable points expressed in an appropriate way, but they are incapable with the reality which exists. They play the hand they are dealt and lose badly in terms of making a point as well as whatever credibility they might have had. As absolutely awful is what they have then that is what they must defend and that isn't a good look for them.

Verbose, but personally I like context.

Your nuance is appreciated by me at least.

 

[WelshBloke]

You listed the differences, but, that does not mean they cannot also be similar in that they were both debated.

What? I can buy shoes, I can buy heroin; shoes and heroin are therefore similar.

You already established that we debated Nazism, and we know that there was a debate about gay marriage.

Did I miss the 60 million dead and attempts to eradicate swathes of people from the earth in the debate about gay marriage? Do not play the equivalence card in those two things.

That makes them both things debated and as such they have that one thing in common. They are both things worth debating as the debate meant we stopped the discrimination and dehumanizing things, as well as gave the right of marriage to gay people. How can you say they were not worth having?

Your argument seems to rely on making an equivalence between gay marriage and Nazism. Good luck with that.

 

[ImpulsE69]

No. One is an ideology where discrimination and dehumanisation is intrinsic the other is asking for rights already applied to most of society be extended to everyone. How you can say that both those are valid subjects for moral augments as to their worth is troubling.

Maybe a closer comparison would be slavery and nazi's? I get where he's going, but you seem stuck on the 'moral' context. Morality is ever changing. I mean, killing and enslaving humans in the name of superiority isn't a new thing and it still happens to this day. In the same vein, gays were having sex that whole time as well and depending on who you talked to it was good or bad. It all comes down to perspective of who thinks what is wrong. If you want to play numbers, much of the world thinks women should be subservient. Does it make them right?

I posed this question to another forum recently:

What is the magic number that makes something offensive?
Is it 1? What makes their opinion any more valid than anyone elses?
Is it 51%?
Does a number not matter, and just who is the loudest? What if 10 people out of a million claim something is offensive, but they are very vocal about it, while the rest say nothing. Who is right? At what point is something actually offensive and should be changed, versus, a few overly sensitive vocal people?

My point being that peoples idea of 'good and right' is ever changing. Most values/morals are anchored in ancient religious beliefs. While you may or may not believe in the diety itself, it doesn't make some of the lessons and values wrong.....the problem is that because of all the differences in culture, those values are not all the same.

 

[WelshBloke]

Maybe a closer comparison would be slavery and nazi's?

I mean he can go for that argument if he wants but I'd just say that neither slavery or Nazism are worthy of debate as to whether they should be allowed in modern society.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I mean he can go for that argument if he wants but I'd just say that neither slavery or Nazism are worthy of debate as to whether they should be allowed in modern society.

I think they are still very valid. It wasn't that long ago and it is very important to remember that a very large portion of the world was perfectly okay with it at the time. There are still portions of the world where it is accepted.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think they are still very valid. It wasn't that long ago and it is very important to remember that a very large portion of the world was perfectly okay with it at the time. There are still portions of the world where it is accepted.

None of those points argues that a debate as to whether slavery should exist in the US now should happen.
They are both settled things that society has decided shouldn't exist any more. The arguments for both have happened, are settled and are over.

 

[ImpulsE69]

None of those points argues that a debate as to whether slavery should exist in the US now should happen.
They are both settled things that society has decided shouldn't exist any more. The arguments for both have happened, are settled and are over.

I still think we aren't seeing the same thing. It isn't that I disagree with you, but as a point of comparison, it still comes down to history. They WERE accepted, and later decided it wasn't okay. That is where the comparison comes in with current debates.

 

[WelshBloke]

I still think we aren't seeing the same thing. It isn't that I disagree with you, but as a point of comparison, it still comes down to history. They WERE accepted, and later decided it wasn't okay. That is where the comparison comes in with current debates.

None of my points have been that things weren't accepted. My point is that theres no valid debate as to whether they should exist now or that they should be tolerated in our society now.

 

[ImpulsE69]

None of my points have been that things weren't accepted. My point is that theres no valid debate as to whether they should exist now or that they should be tolerated in our society now.

I'm lost then because we're not talking about debating if they should exist, we're talking about how perception of tolerance changes over time and those are good examples of things that had one perception by a wide audience for a long time, and eventually changed. I guess if you want something more recent then abortion is a good one that isn't settled.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm lost then because we're not talking about debating if they should exist, we're talking about how perception of tolerance changes over time and those are good examples of things that had one perception by a wide audience for a long time, and eventually changed. I guess if you want something more recent then abortion is a good one that isn't settled.

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.

That was my post thats being argued.

 

[realibrad]

What? I can buy shoes, I can buy heroin; shoes and heroin are therefore similar.

If the discussion was about how somethings are legal to buy, and other things are illegal to buy, and some things are impossible to buy, then the thing in common for those two things would be that you could buy both. At an extremely high level that is the root of it. That is a much higher abstraction level that what we were doing though.

Did I miss the 60 million dead and attempts to eradicate swathes of people from the earth in the debate about gay marriage? Do not play the equivalence card in those two things.

They are still things that were done, debated, and a side won out. Nobody is trying to say those things are completely equal. Do you really believe that is what was happening?

Your argument seems to rely on making an equivalence between gay marriage and Nazism. Good luck with that.

They are somewhat related in that they were two subject debated in society which the Right side won in each. They are not morally equal topics. You might be unable to understand that distinction it appears.