Defending Tolerance Requires Intolerance...

[Elegiac]

Popper's idea on the subject is ultimately borne out by the end results of the "you're entitled to your opinion" attitude; something designed to promote positive discourse has since been hijacked by fringe elements at everyone else's expense. You see this with the anti-vaxxers, the climate skeptics, and the "alternative facts" crowd.

Really, the answer becomes; no, you aren't entitled to an opinion you cannot substantiate. We should not respect viewpoints that have no solid backing, we should not tolerate viewpoints seeking to undermine the institution of a tolerant society either.

[Venant]

We can start with not nazis.

I'm talking about a systematic approach, trying to just single out a single group you know you don't like is as irrational as people who are blind racists.

So what are the guidelines for deciding what is acceptable dissent? If we can't get some set rules, it just comes down to being ruled by the judgement of a bunch of thugs who dictate what is acceptable.

[Glorious Leader]

I'm talking about a systematic approach, trying to just single out a single group you know you don't like is as irrational as people who are blind racists.

So what are the guidelines for deciding what is acceptable dissent? If we can't get some set rules, it just comes down to being ruled by the judgement of a bunch of thugs who dictate what is acceptable.

Step 1: no nazis

[karumayu]

I'm talking about a systematic approach, trying to just single out a single group you know you don't like is as irrational as people who are blind racists.

So what are the guidelines for deciding what is acceptable dissent? If we can't get some set rules, it just comes down to being ruled by the judgement of a bunch of thugs who dictate what is acceptable.

So are you going to accept radical religious fanatics as well? With your logic, we can't condemn any hate groups by singling them out.

[vondevon]

Well then both Neo-Nazi's and Islam have the same platform. Why give one a pass and not the other?

neo-Nazis are people, Islam is a religion. In America we don't ban Mein Kampf, just like we don't ban the Quran. However, in America we do condemn ISIS (a group of people who spread death and violence) but apparently we don't condemn neo-Nazis (another group of people who spread death and violence).

Does that better illustrate the difference for you?

- - - Updated - - -

... My problem with the left isn't the punch a nazi bullshit. I agree, fuck nazis. My problem is the hypocrisy they have where certain groups can be hateful, racist, bigots, ect in the same or even a worse degree than the neo nazis and they are either ignored or even venerated. Either it's all allowed or none is, and the actions of the left speak louder than the words of the left.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, my friend. The biggest problem with discussions on society & morality are conflating similar terms that are just distinct enough to undermine your argument if properly defined. In other words, you're painting with too broad a brush and that's why you can't see the difference in the details.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why we shouldn't tolerate hate groups such as Nazi's, BLM and ANTIFA.

ANTIFA - Hates Fascism and refuses to watch it take hold in America
BLM - Hates unjust treatment of Black people at the hands of police officers
Nazis - Hates all non-Aryan races and wants to see them exterminated from the Earth.

... I'm not seeing the similarities???

- - - Updated - - -

... So there literally isn't any room for dissent inside your ideal country, its just all mob rule with the assumption that you can control the mob forever. I imagine a system like that would be incredibly dangerous.

Dissenting against those who would seek to exterminate other humans is not just allowed, but encouraged in our country. Nice try though.

[Deleted]

When it comes to something like a religion that counts its followers in the hundreds of millions/billions, who are overwhelmingly peaceful? No, they're only representative of extremists.

When it comes to hate-groups who exist solely to propagate hate and intolerance? No, not in the slightest.

If the "peaceful ones" tolerate the extremists(like many not calling out extremist imams in their mosques), does this absolve them of any responsibility and make them still "peaceful ones" ?

If the "peaceful ones" view sharia law over the law of the western country they reside in, are they still integrated?

[vondevon]

If the "peaceful ones" tolerate the extremists(like many not calling out extremist imams in their mosques), does this absolve them of any responsibility and make them still "peaceful ones" ?

No it does not absolve them, you are absolutely right. And what you see is that followers who remain members of mosques that encourage extremist violence are counted among the blameworthy when violence occurs. As a Muslim, if you discover your Imam preaching extremist violence, you have a choice to stay at that mosque or leave it. If you stay, you become part of the problem.

Similarly, if you are a "centrist" who believes monuments celebrating the Confederacy should remain despite what the Confederacy and that monument stands for, and you hear the neo-Nazis and KKK members around you calling for extremist violence yet refuse to stand against it, then you condone it and become complicit.

[schwarzkopf]

Who decide what is "intolerance?"

The intolerant decide that for themselves.

[Edge-]

which sounds insane if you aren't a collectivist.

What is a "collectivist", exactly?

If the "peaceful ones" tolerate the extremists(like many not calling out extremist imams in their mosques), does this absolve them of any responsibility and make them still "peaceful ones" ?

If the "peaceful ones" view sharia law over the law of the western country they reside in, are they still integrated?

Do the "peaceful conservatives" tolerating extreme right wing hate groups, and telling us we should tolerate them, absolve the rest of them from any responsibility and make them still "peaceful conservatives"?

If the "peaceful conservatives" view Biblical law over the law of the Western country they reside in, are they still integrated?

[Grimbold21]

...of Intolerance. Though it sounds paradoxical, the conundrum is a result of improperly used/understood language. The true paradox is the belief that egalitarianism begets authoritarianism. I will try to explain.

A free society requires an equal society. There is no such thing as partial liberty. One cannot be free as deigned in the founding documents of our country, if one is also cordoned from exercises of self-determination and expression. Life, liberty, and the right to pursue one's own happiness are guaranteed in our country, and protected by the full weight of our government. Those rights are a torch which must be preserved for each successive generation. Preservation necessitates a willingness to defend it against those who would tear it down. It must be defended.

History has taught us again and again that passive resistance to active violence will always lose. If Group A advocates for the extermination of Group B (violence), and Group B abstains from all violence including self-defense (passive resistance), Group A will succeed in exterminating Group B.

This is why we have criminal proceedings in the Land of the Free. When a person takes actions that infringe on the rights of another, that person becomes a criminal and forfeits their own rights. Crimes are not protected expression.

In the case of Intolerance (specifically white-supremacist groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis) they advocate for the oppression of Americans. That is literally their founding principle. Rejecting this form of intolerance is not oppression - it is explicitly preventing it to exist. Racist groups like these need people to believe they are the victims of oppression so they can carry out their agenda unhindered. Calling out their lie is a patriotic duty to defend our fellow citizens.

The 1st Amendment guarantees your freedom to speak, but not access to a platform. Refusing to listen to divisive and factually-wrong rhetoric is not censorship. No American is entitled to an audience or a stage. The freedom to ignore and reject racist rhetoric is a protected right.

You're presenting two different, but related scenarios.

Most of your post has an underlying tone that suggests that ideologies that promote intolerance of others shouldn't have a right to existence, including at a lawful level. But you close your post by suggesting an action which is personal: the refusal to listen and/or acknowledge their ideology.

Recognizing that an ideology is crap but acknowledging their right to spout nonsense is what a lot of people already do. These same people believe in the defeat of these ideologies by engaging them with discussion.

[Masark]

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact. -Yonatan Zunger

[Adam Jensen]

Extremists? So those extremists are not representative of anything?

Are the KKK representative of white people?

[vondevon]

You're presenting two different, but related scenarios.

Most of your post has an underlying tone that suggests that ideologies that promote intolerance of others shouldn't have a right to existence, including at a lawful level. But you close your post by suggesting an action which is personal: the refusal to listen and/or acknowledge their ideology.

Recognizing that an ideology is crap but acknowledging their right to spout nonsense is what a lot of people already do. These same people believe in the defeat of these ideologies by engaging them with discussion.

I'm not arguing that certain ideologies don't have the right to exist objectively, but rather that certain ideologies simply cannot co-exist with the laws that govern our specific society (referring to America).

I'm not saying we need to exterminate Nazism, but I refuse to allocate space for it in the public discourse because it fundamentally seeks to erode rational discourse and public safety. Reading Mein Kampf doesn't make you a criminal, but seeking to further its agenda should be. Please see the post right below yours or read on.

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact. -Yonatan Zunger

Thank you for providing this lovely quote which so eloquently describes the point I am struggling to appropriately define.

[Video Games]

What if I don't feel like tolerating tolerance?

[draynay]

What if I don't feel like tolerating tolerance?

guillotine probably

we are making a better world, after all

[Video Games]

guillotine probably

we are making a better world, after all

Shiii. I don't want to be on the opposite end of the moral spectrum even if they're subject and don't matter.

[Deleted]

Do the "peaceful conservatives" tolerating extreme right wing hate groups

And who are those? I dont know any peaceful conservative who would tolerate that.

If the "peaceful conservatives" view Biblical law over the law of the Western country they reside in, are they still integrated?

I wouldnt call the Amish integrated, as they kinda have their own society bubble, but I would definitely call them peaceful and loving people.

[Edge-]

And who are those? I dont know any peaceful conservative who would tolerate that.

Who are those in your example? I simply mirrored your words, just for a different group that appears to tolerate hate based on recent events.

I wouldnt call the Amish integrated, as they kinda have their own society bubble, but I would definitely call them peaceful and loving people.

Talking about folks like Roy Moore, FYI.

[rogueMatthias]

No, you're attempting to strawman an entire religion based off of a small minority of extremists/extreme fundamentalists. And we shouldn't tolerate those extremists, you're right. Just as we shouldn't tolerate extremists from any religion when they advocate for hate and intolerance.

If we want to extend your "logic" beyond just Islam (don't pretend you're not talking about Islam), it could extend to every major religion in the world with its blanket lack of logic. And that's beyond silly.

Do people really think that Muslim nations are just the same as ours, with the same values, they just where Hijabs and stuff? You just think it's some tiny number of extrmists that are intolerant in these countries?

I could list you 13 Muslim countries where I could LEGALLY BE PUT TO DEATH just for being an atheist. Even Pakistan can put people to death under its blasphemy laws. The funny part, they never actually even need to use that punishment because as soon as the blasphemy laws become public the locals will take it in to their own hands to have them killed.

It's great that a lot of women in the west choose to wear Hijabs, but lets not pretend there aren't many countries where women are punished with beatings or lashings for not wearing one... BY LAW.

And I've not even started on all of the inter-faith intolerance between different Muslim sects.

Theodarzna was right. Antiganon literally described a lot of Muslim nations; so succinctly that I assumed that was part of the joke.

[Deleted]

Who are those in your example? I simply mirrored your words, just for a different group that appears to tolerate hate based on recent events.

.

How about every muslim who prayed at a mosque where an extremist imam preached his hatred but refused to report him? My god its not rocket science.