Page 13 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 274

Thread: The World is Stupid

  1. Top | #121
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I see very little value in "tolerance", which is an inherently unstable state.
    I see this sentiment cropping up a lot lately, almost always from the overly-progressive left.

    I have also observed that those decrying tolerance as a weakness tend to be those who've never been on the receiving end of intolerance.
    I am not advocating for intolerance, only remarking that "tolerance" is setting a very low bar to reach. It's better than nothing, yes. But if your neighbor has done nothing wrong by you, you shouldn't "tolerate" their differences of culture, perspectiive, faith, sexuality, etc, you should actually embrace those differences, not just tolerate them. Society would be much better off if we all did. And if they are doing something truly objectionable, then tolerance may be the best a civil society can afford them for a time, but their malevolent activities, whatever they are, will eventually need to be called out.

    This isn't an opinion I came by "lately", I had my fill of liberal "tolerance" by the time I was 14 years old. It is a cold comfort, I can assure you, to learn that you are only being tolerated, not loved, accepted, or celebrated, by those who you yourself do love and care about. If someone deep down hates everyone who is not like them, the truth of that, the hypocrisy of their true opinion, probably displays itself to other people way more often than they realize. It's because I've been on the receiving end of this my whole life that I can assure you with absolute sincerity, that for the person on the receiving end, tolerance and intolerance aren't really as different as the false Left would have you believe. Tolerance is better than intolerance, it's just a pretty shit excuse for an end goal.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  2. Top | #122
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,092
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I see very little value in "tolerance", which is an inherently unstable state.
    I see this sentiment cropping up a lot lately, almost always from the overly-progressive left.

    I have also observed that those decrying tolerance as a weakness tend to be those who've never been on the receiving end of intolerance.
    I am not advocating for intolerance, only remarking that "tolerance" is setting a very low bar to reach. It's better than nothing, yes. But if your neighbor has done nothing wrong by you, you shouldn't "tolerate" their differences of culture, perspectiive, faith, sexuality, etc, you should actually embrace those differences, not just tolerate them. Society would be much better off if we all did. And if they are doing something truly objectionable, then tolerance may be the best a civil society can afford them for a time, but their malevolent activities, whatever they are, will eventually need to be called out.

    This isn't an opinion I came by "lately", I had my fill of liberal "tolerance" by the time I was 14 years old. It is a cold comfort, I can assure you, to learn that you are only being tolerated, not loved, accepted, or celebrated, by those who you yourself do love and care about. If someone deep down hates everyone who is not like them, the truth of that, the hypocrisy of their true opinion, probably displays itself to other people way more often than they realize. It's because I've been on the receiving end of this my whole life that I can assure you with absolute sincerity, that for the person on the receiving end, tolerance and intolerance aren't really as different as the false Left would have you believe. Tolerance is better than intolerance, it's just a pretty shit excuse for an end goal.
    I think you have a very different understanding of "tolerance" than I do. I tolerate your views when I disagree with them, and show you respect - because I understand that not everyone has to share my views, and that other people's views are valid for them. I tolerate my coworker talking about her bible studies, even though I'm an atheist and I frankly find religions to be absurd and annoying. I tolerate my sister's weed-based lifestyle, even though I think she's proved that it is completely possible to be a junkie about pot.

    Tolerance is the act of accepting other people's views and beliefs as valid for them, even if you don't share those views. If your neighbor has never done anything bad to you and you know nothing about them, you're not "tolerating" them, you have no information about them. On the other hand, if your neighbor believes that the 2020 election was rigged and that covid is a conspiracy, but they have not actually done any harm to you or anyone else, then you are tolerating them.

    For reference, this is the sense in which tolerance is used in this thread...

    tolerance
    2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
    b: the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

  3. Top | #123
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I see very little value in "tolerance", which is an inherently unstable state.
    I see this sentiment cropping up a lot lately, almost always from the overly-progressive left.

    I have also observed that those decrying tolerance as a weakness tend to be those who've never been on the receiving end of intolerance.
    I am not advocating for intolerance, only remarking that "tolerance" is setting a very low bar to reach. It's better than nothing, yes. But if your neighbor has done nothing wrong by you, you shouldn't "tolerate" their differences of culture, perspectiive, faith, sexuality, etc, you should actually embrace those differences, not just tolerate them. Society would be much better off if we all did. And if they are doing something truly objectionable, then tolerance may be the best a civil society can afford them for a time, but their malevolent activities, whatever they are, will eventually need to be called out.

    This isn't an opinion I came by "lately", I had my fill of liberal "tolerance" by the time I was 14 years old. It is a cold comfort, I can assure you, to learn that you are only being tolerated, not loved, accepted, or celebrated, by those who you yourself do love and care about. If someone deep down hates everyone who is not like them, the truth of that, the hypocrisy of their true opinion, probably displays itself to other people way more often than they realize. It's because I've been on the receiving end of this my whole life that I can assure you with absolute sincerity, that for the person on the receiving end, tolerance and intolerance aren't really as different as the false Left would have you believe. Tolerance is better than intolerance, it's just a pretty shit excuse for an end goal.
    You've just described how totalitarian thought works. You can't force people to love each other. If we demand it from each other we're only forcing people to pretend they embrace each other. Life becomes a theatre. Which is exactly what we have among the left in the West now. To keep each other in line we devise sophisticated systems of social punishments. Because there's no genuine opinions expressed and it's nothing but ritual. Since there's a disconnect between what people are feeling and what they are doing, these rituals quickly spin out of control. We use increasingly bizarre reasons to slam each other as infidels and try to destroy them.

    By comparison this is how militant religion works.

    The best we can do is demand that we tolerate each other. And hope they learn to embrace each other over time. Anything else will backfire.

  4. Top | #124
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    I am not advocating for intolerance, only remarking that "tolerance" is setting a very low bar to reach. It's better than nothing, yes. But if your neighbor has done nothing wrong by you, you shouldn't "tolerate" their differences of culture, perspectiive, faith, sexuality, etc, you should actually embrace those differences, not just tolerate them. Society would be much better off if we all did. And if they are doing something truly objectionable, then tolerance may be the best a civil society can afford them for a time, but their malevolent activities, whatever they are, will eventually need to be called out.

    This isn't an opinion I came by "lately", I had my fill of liberal "tolerance" by the time I was 14 years old. It is a cold comfort, I can assure you, to learn that you are only being tolerated, not loved, accepted, or celebrated, by those who you yourself do love and care about. If someone deep down hates everyone who is not like them, the truth of that, the hypocrisy of their true opinion, probably displays itself to other people way more often than they realize. It's because I've been on the receiving end of this my whole life that I can assure you with absolute sincerity, that for the person on the receiving end, tolerance and intolerance aren't really as different as the false Left would have you believe. Tolerance is better than intolerance, it's just a pretty shit excuse for an end goal.
    You've just described how totalitarian thought works. You can't force people to love each other. If we demand it from each other we're only forcing people to pretend they embrace each other. Life becomes a theatre. Which is exactly what we have among the left in the West now. To keep each other in line we devise sophisticated systems of social punishments. Because there's no genuine opinions expressed and it's nothing but ritual. Since there's a disconnect between what people are feeling and what they are doing, these rituals quickly spin out of control. We use increasingly bizarre reasons to slam each other as infidels and try to destroy them.

    By comparison this is how militant religion works.

    The best we can do is demand that we tolerate each other. And hope they learn to embrace each other over time. Anything else will backfire.
    welp, this comment of yours is intolerable.

  5. Top | #125
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Then you're just being a Contrarian.
    I think my opinions are genuinely different from Politesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Then you're a Marxist.
    I don't know what it means in this context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Tolerance is one of my highest ideals.
    Then you're a Pacifist.
    I don't think that follows. I don't think it's contradictory to force people to tolerate each other. With guns if necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Liberalism is the opposite of fascism.
    Then you're an Ideological Absolutist.
    At least absolute tolerance is a reachable utopia. It has that going for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.
    Then you're an Isolationist.
    We're talking aren't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    (Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I'm just being a Satarist. )
    Satire is the highest form of political commentary.

    Your comments were well thought out. My hat off to you, Sir.

  6. Top | #126
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    I think my opinions are genuinely different from Politesses.



    I don't know what it means in this context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Tolerance is one of my highest ideals.
    Then you're a Pacifist.
    I don't think that follows. I don't think it's contradictory to force people to tolerate each other. With guns if necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Liberalism is the opposite of fascism.
    Then you're an Ideological Absolutist.
    At least absolute tolerance is a reachable utopia. It has that going for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.
    Then you're an Isolationist.
    We're talking aren't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    (Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I'm just being a Satarist. )
    Satire is the highest form of political commentary.

    Your comments were well thought out. My hat off to you, Sir.
    about enforcing tolerance with "guns"
    guns are useless without bullets but that is irrelevant in ideological war.
    (and you should know that) despite sarcastic irony and satire.
    sadism much? sardonic to say the least.

  7. Top | #127
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    I think my opinions are genuinely different from Politesses.



    I don't know what it means in this context.



    I don't think that follows. I don't think it's contradictory to force people to tolerate each other. With guns if necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Liberalism is the opposite of fascism.
    Then you're an Ideological Absolutist.
    At least absolute tolerance is a reachable utopia. It has that going for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.
    Then you're an Isolationist.
    We're talking aren't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    (Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I'm just being a Satarist. )
    Satire is the highest form of political commentary.

    Your comments were well thought out. My hat off to you, Sir.
    about enforcing tolerance with "guns"
    guns are useless without bullets but that is irrelevant in ideological war.
    (and you should know that) despite sarcastic irony and satire.
    sadism much? sardonic to say the least.
    I actually don't think it's sarcastic, ironic, satirical or self contradictory. I want to be tolerated. I want to live in a country and a world where people are tolerated. Hitler and Stalin aren't tolerant leaders. Therefore invading them is justified. Being tolerant doesn't mean putting up with any shit. It means fighting for a society that is tolerant. If my tolerance leads me to tolerate something that makes the world less tolerant, then my tolerance is self defeating. So obviously that's not the type of tolerance I'm for.

    It's fair to say that I'm militantly tolerant.

    I'm actually for a world where democratic liberal countries have a free pass to invade any non-democratic country, if the goal is to make it democratic. That's why I was for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

  8. Top | #128
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    I think my opinions are genuinely different from Politesses.



    I don't know what it means in this context.



    I don't think that follows. I don't think it's contradictory to force people to tolerate each other. With guns if necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post

    Then you're an Ideological Absolutist.
    At least absolute tolerance is a reachable utopia. It has that going for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.
    Then you're an Isolationist.
    We're talking aren't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    (Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I'm just being a Satarist. )
    Satire is the highest form of political commentary.

    Your comments were well thought out. My hat off to you, Sir.
    about enforcing tolerance with "guns"
    guns are useless without bullets but that is irrelevant in ideological war.
    (and you should know that) despite sarcastic irony and satire.
    sadism much? sardonic to say the least.
    I actually don't think it's sarcastic, ironic, satirical or self contradictory. I want to be tolerated. I want to live in a country and a world where people are tolerated. Hitler and Stalin aren't tolerant leaders. Therefore invading them is justified. Being tolerant doesn't mean putting up with any shit. It means fighting for a society that is tolerant. If my tolerance leads me to tolerate something that makes the world less tolerant, then my tolerance is self defeating. So obviously that's not the type of tolerance I'm for.

    It's fair to say that I'm militantly tolerant.

    I'm actually for a world where democratic liberal countries have a free pass to invade any non-democratic country, if the goal is to make it democratic. That's why I was for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
    well good for you, manager at some sludge shop. the rest of us are picking up your slack.

  9. Top | #129
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    I am not advocating for intolerance, only remarking that "tolerance" is setting a very low bar to reach. It's better than nothing, yes. But if your neighbor has done nothing wrong by you, you shouldn't "tolerate" their differences of culture, perspectiive, faith, sexuality, etc, you should actually embrace those differences, not just tolerate them. Society would be much better off if we all did. And if they are doing something truly objectionable, then tolerance may be the best a civil society can afford them for a time, but their malevolent activities, whatever they are, will eventually need to be called out.

    This isn't an opinion I came by "lately", I had my fill of liberal "tolerance" by the time I was 14 years old. It is a cold comfort, I can assure you, to learn that you are only being tolerated, not loved, accepted, or celebrated, by those who you yourself do love and care about. If someone deep down hates everyone who is not like them, the truth of that, the hypocrisy of their true opinion, probably displays itself to other people way more often than they realize. It's because I've been on the receiving end of this my whole life that I can assure you with absolute sincerity, that for the person on the receiving end, tolerance and intolerance aren't really as different as the false Left would have you believe. Tolerance is better than intolerance, it's just a pretty shit excuse for an end goal.
    You've just described how totalitarian thought works. You can't force people to love each other. If we demand it from each other we're only forcing people to pretend they embrace each other. Life becomes a theatre. Which is exactly what we have among the left in the West now. To keep each other in line we devise sophisticated systems of social punishments. Because there's no genuine opinions expressed and it's nothing but ritual. Since there's a disconnect between what people are feeling and what they are doing, these rituals quickly spin out of control. We use increasingly bizarre reasons to slam each other as infidels and try to destroy them.

    By comparison this is how militant religion works.

    The best we can do is demand that we tolerate each other. And hope they learn to embrace each other over time. Anything else will backfire.
    Who said anything about force?

    You're decrying force, but also advocating for a bloody, twenty-year long war in which hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people died, in the space of a few threads. Which of your two faces would you prefer that I believe?
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  10. Top | #130
    Veteran Member KeepTalking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis Metro East
    Posts
    4,310
    Archived
    3,057
    Total Posts
    7,367
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    I am not advocating for intolerance, only remarking that "tolerance" is setting a very low bar to reach. It's better than nothing, yes. But if your neighbor has done nothing wrong by you, you shouldn't "tolerate" their differences of culture, perspectiive, faith, sexuality, etc, you should actually embrace those differences, not just tolerate them. Society would be much better off if we all did. And if they are doing something truly objectionable, then tolerance may be the best a civil society can afford them for a time, but their malevolent activities, whatever they are, will eventually need to be called out.

    This isn't an opinion I came by "lately", I had my fill of liberal "tolerance" by the time I was 14 years old. It is a cold comfort, I can assure you, to learn that you are only being tolerated, not loved, accepted, or celebrated, by those who you yourself do love and care about. If someone deep down hates everyone who is not like them, the truth of that, the hypocrisy of their true opinion, probably displays itself to other people way more often than they realize. It's because I've been on the receiving end of this my whole life that I can assure you with absolute sincerity, that for the person on the receiving end, tolerance and intolerance aren't really as different as the false Left would have you believe. Tolerance is better than intolerance, it's just a pretty shit excuse for an end goal.
    You've just described how totalitarian thought works. You can't force people to love each other. If we demand it from each other we're only forcing people to pretend they embrace each other. Life becomes a theatre. Which is exactly what we have among the left in the West now. To keep each other in line we devise sophisticated systems of social punishments. Because there's no genuine opinions expressed and it's nothing but ritual. Since there's a disconnect between what people are feeling and what they are doing, these rituals quickly spin out of control. We use increasingly bizarre reasons to slam each other as infidels and try to destroy them.

    By comparison this is how militant religion works.

    The best we can do is demand that we tolerate each other. And hope they learn to embrace each other over time. Anything else will backfire.
    You've just described how totalitarian thought works. You can't force people to tolerate each other. If we demand it from each other we're only forcing people to pretend they forbear each other. Life becomes a theatre. Which is exactly what we have among the left in Copenhagen now. To keep each other in line we devise sophisticated systems of social punishments. Because there's no genuine opinions expressed and it's nothing but ritual. Since there's a disconnect between what people are feeling and what they are doing, these rituals quickly spin out of control. We use increasingly bizarre reasons to slam each other as infidels and try to destroy them.

    By comparison this is how militant religion works.

    The best we can do is demand that we ignore each other. And hope they learn to tolerate each other over time. Anything else will backfire.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •