Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Does it actually mean nothing, that some people place more value on such things as acceptance of other human beings, and who they fundamentally are, more so than free speech and anything goes

 

These are great posts you're making. I told you, I like seeing you express yourself. Go after me if it strikes you that way, you won't hurt me. I've bottomed out on depression already and it's in my rear view now. Consider me a punching bag to take out aggressive if you'd like, I'm serious. 

 

9 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

You are doing a disservice to this site, imo, by stating that those who hold different opinions, and value different things, haven't fully deconverted, or that their opinions/values are somehow part of the deconversion process.

 

They can either ban me, censor me, or leave it alone like they always have and let me speak as freely as I'd like. I'm not wearing any warning points, am I? 

 

9 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Because that is what the implication is here: "you haven't grown enough, you're still somewhere on the way." I for one do not agree with this at all.

 

You don't have to agree with it. But the fact is that this is how people act in churches, intolerant of people thinking outside the box, not accepting the orthodox views, not believing the beliefs / ideology. And when you see people in the secular world acting like they want others shuts down, guess what, they're acting like church people in the secular political sphere. My philosophy doesn't allow for shutting down church people, nor secular acting church people, but it does allow for calling it as I see it. And being tolerant of those who are intolerant of me saying it. The only shutting down will be in the direction of you trying to shut me down, never me trying to shut you or anyone else down. 

 

I want more apologists around here, for one thing. I want more christians to join. I want the mixing pot to be as diverse as it can be so things never go stagnant. 

 

That's also why I want you. Imagine how boring it would be if I was never disagreed with. 

 

I'm glad you're reconsidering this. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

They can either ban me, censor me, or leave it alone like they always have and let me speak as freely as I'd like. I'm not wearing any warning points, am I? 

So you still stand by your stance, that those of us recent deconverts, just haven't come around to seeing things differently, haven't grown enough? Because, I can tell you, after a lifetime of fundamentalism, and seeing exactly what intolerance of other human beings does, and how it's passed on to the next generation, I'm not likely to change my stance on this issue. I think it comes down to people are different, and so be it.

32 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You don't have to agree with it. But the fact is that this is how people act in churches, intolerant of people thinking outside the box, not accepting the orthodox views, not believing the beliefs / ideology. And when you see people in the secular world acting like they want others shuts down, guess what, they're acting like church people in the secular political sphere. My philosophy doesn't allow for shutting down church people, nor secular acting church people, but it does allow for calling as I see it. And being tolerant of those who are intolerant of me saying it. The only shutting down will be in the direction of you trying to shut me down, never me trying to shut you or anyone else down. 

I'm not for shutting down as much as educating people, trying to prod them to challenge their own prejudices and biases, and learning from that process. Is it going to help more if I yell "shut up!" or say "you're wrong, and here's why.." So I think you are overgeneralizing a bit here when you say that those of us who are concerned with the consequences of some actions or behaviour, and disagree with them, are wanting to shut them down. I am an INFJ, and I quote: "To INFJs, the world is a place full of inequity – but it doesn’t have to be." If I see injustice or behaviour that hurts others, I will call it out.

32 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

I'm glad you're reconsidering this. 

I am reconsidering because I was told by someone in the know that some things around here might change. And I am reconsidering only due to that.

[Joshpantera]

44 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

So you still stand by your stance, that those of us recent deconverts, just haven't come around to seeing things differently, haven't grown enough? Because, I can tell you, after a lifetime of fundamentalism, and seeing exactly what intolerance of other human beings does, and how it's passed on to the next generation, I'm not likely to change my stance on this issue. I think it comes down to people are different, and so be it.

 

Haven't grown enough to transcend "church think" if they're still wanting to silence their perceived opposition, yes. If you've seen exactly what intolerance of other human beings does, and how it's passed on to the next generation, then I would suggest that you consider changing your stance on being "intolerant, of intolerance." That seems like a rather uncomfortable position to try and justify. 

 

44 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I'm not for shutting down as much as educating people, trying to prod them to challenge their own prejudices and biases, and learning from that process. Is it going to help more if I yell "shut up!" or say "you're wrong, and here's why.." So I think you are overgeneralizing a bit here when you say that those of us who are concerned with the consequences of some actions or behaviour, and disagree with them, are wanting to shut them down. I am an INFJ, and I quote: "To INFJs, the world is a place full of inequity – but it doesn’t have to be." If I see injustice or behaviour that hurts others, I will call it out.

 

This is good. Because when we started out you seemed to be taking the side of wanting people like Fwee pretty much shut down. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed that way. You and TS both. The thing is, you can say 'shut up, you're wrong.' If somethings wrong, it is what it is. Racist groups physically abusing minorities and things of that nature is not very acceptable. Because it crosses the line into infringing the rights of others. And becomes illegal. You can admonish them for hate speech, too. Counter their arguments. Make them look like the horses ass. If you don't want to totally shut them down or have them silenced, then you're well within reason IMO. 

 

BTW, I've seen some documentary in passing about the treatment of Native Canadians. I wasn't previously aware of how parallel the bigotry of many Canadians is to somewhere like down here in the southern US. I thought Canadians were supposed to be so much more progressive and liberal. After seeing the movie I could see how the Canadian flag could be likened to the Confederate flag in the eyes of your native people. I'm sympathetic to your distaste for the atrocities done to the Native Canadians by the Canadian Government, for one thing. And not excluding the churches involved in the mistreatment of Native Canadians. I think I understand where you're going with this. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Haven't grown enough to transcend "church think" if they're still wanting to silence their perceived opposition, yes. If you've seen exactly what intolerance of other human beings does, and how it's passed on to the next generation, then I would suggest that you consider changing your stance on being "intolerant, of intolerance." That seems like a rather uncomfortable position to try and justify. 

 

Once again, I am going to pull out the intolerance of LGBTQ people as an example, but you can insert any other prejudice towards people due to their orientation, religion, race etc. I'd like to actually hear you argue what the merits are of tolerating this intolerance/prejudice towards people on this basis, considering that we live in an age where we value fundamental human rights. In what way does tolerating this form of intolerance/prejudice, make us better humans, and a better society?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

This is good. Because when we started out you seemed to be taking the side of wanting people like Fwee pretty much shut down.

 

 

I'm not talking about any specific thread or person here, I am talking about the general pattern of things in ToT. Inflammatory, sexist, racist, troll postings can imo stay in the ToT and be password protected. I realize I will cause a hue and outcry here in response if I tell you they can be deleted or disallowed outright, as for some people free speech is more important, even in regards to this kind of content. Naturally you can guess that's my preference, but I'm making a concession here because I've actually given up on seeing any reasonable behaviour in that section.  Is it really such a bad thing that an area where topics are not related to the purpose of this site, have a password? Those who want to venture there can, and the rest of us don't need to see it in the activity feed.

[Joshpantera]

On 6/14/2018 at 10:08 PM, TruthSeeker0 said:

Once again, I am going to pull out the intolerance of LGBTQ people as an example, but you can insert any other prejudice towards people due to their orientation, religion, race etc. I'd like to actually hear you argue what the merits are of tolerating this intolerance/prejudice towards people on this basis, considering that we live in an age where we value fundamental human rights. In what way does tolerating this form of intolerance/prejudice, make us better humans, and a better society?

 

I'd be happy to engage this. The people who are intolerant hang themselves. You know the saying, give them a rope long enough and they'll hang themselves?

 

It's so unfashionable these days to oppose things like gay marriage. There's so many people with gay relatives, even conservatives. It's one of those flat earth things, like disillusioned was point out - I don't think any one has the power of influence to change public policy concerning gay rights anymore. We're just too far along already for that to make any sense now. As you can see, I fully support gay rights. Why wouldn't I? For sake of the bible? For sake of back woods prejudice? 

 

What does it matter if someone does think homosexuality is a disease, or disgusting in the year 2018? 

 

It isn't going to change anything. And those opinions are already dying out as it is. They're of little consequence in this day and age. I may be wrong, of course, but I don't see society going backwards now with gays rights. I expect to see it continue moving forward regardless of naysayer's or haters. And trying to shut them down gives them more credibility than they deserve in a lot of ways too. But even then, I don't think that will help their cause either. 

 

More importantly, you look like the bigger person for tolerating them and letting them speak as though you're not even threatened or impressed by it. 

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Once again, I am going to pull out the intolerance of LGBTQ people as an example, but you can insert any other prejudice towards people due to their orientation, religion, race etc. I'd like to actually hear you argue what the merits are of tolerating this intolerance/prejudice towards people on this basis, considering that we live in an age where we value fundamental human rights. In what way does tolerating this form of intolerance/prejudice, make us better humans, and a better society?

 

I don't think Josh is tolerating the intolerance. He's tolerating the right of the person to say what they want to, and for you to rebut that if you feel the need to.

 

So do I think we should let Joe Blogg get away with being homophobic? No, I think we should tell him why he's wrong and force him to try and justify his position. Now if its a bad argument it's going to fall apart. But should we ban Joe Blogg? Tell him no, you cannot voice any dissent towards any group... except Christians. Oh boy are we happy to let our big guns here tear into any poor mite looking to save lost souls.

 

I can assure you 2 billion Christians think WE should be silenced and dumped in hell for our views of Christianity. Be careful how we tread in this discussion. People who want to silence others only want to silence that which they disagree with. So depending on which group has power depends on who/what gets silenced, and silencing people only leads to silence.

 

So I think we need to separate very clearly tolerating someone voicing their opinion vs actually tolerating the views expressed. There is a huge distinction, but one a certain group here are failing to make.

 

We should afford everyone and every group the same rights as anyone else has, but we should also be free to discuss any group. No one should get a free pass because they happen to belong to a certain group. We've seen that with religion - for too long has religion been off limits to criticism. That's now changed, thankfully. In centuries past we'd all be hung... literally.

 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So I think we need to separate very clearly tolerating someone voicing their opinion vs actually tolerating the views expressed. There is a huge distinction, but one a certain group here are failing to make.

 

Ok I see I wasn't clear enough because I already know the two of you (I'm including Josh here) well enough to know you don't agree with such views, but that you do tolerate voicing such opinions.  In Canada at least, we have legislation regarding hate speech in the criminal code.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html

What's your opinion of this, where does it belong in the tolerating someone voicing their opinion vs tolerating the views expressed?

Do you agree that someone propagating opinions that are prejudiced and intolerant of others should be able to speak on university campuses, because they have a right to air their opinions? They should be able to discuss such ideas in an academic setting, regardless of the consequences, that they may and likely will influence an audience?

 

And since I don't know how to quote in a quote here, Josh said:

"It isn't going to change anything. And those opinions are already dying out as it is. They're of little consequence in this day and age. I may be wrong, of course, but I don't see society going backwards now with gays rights. I expect to see continue moving forward regardless of naysayer's or haters...... "

 

I don't know if you were specifically talking about intolerance of LGBTQ people, but I wasn't.

 

To say that prejudice and intolerance are dying out, is incredibly naive, when you look at human history down the last few thousand years, and human nature. Prejudice and intolerance on the basis of race, sexual orientation, gender identification, religion etc hasn't gone anywhere. In fact, we have some people inflaming and encouraging prejudice, in quite high places as well, today. In doing so, they have given implicit permission and encouragement to those with intolerant views to air them, and with quite a degree of confidence as well. And I think it's a grave mistake to conclude that it's of little consequence in this day and age, and that it poses no threat.

 

Look at human history. We are just barely removed from slavery, when you put it into perspective. A mere decade or two ago we finally closed our last doors to residential schools in Canada, where we forcefully tried to remove the native from the native, and strip them of a cultural identity and their very dignity. Hell, look at our discussion threads on aboriginal topics on Canadian news sites, now they are a real eye opener! Look at how 'advanced' some african nations are in regards to LGBTQ rights. Don't only look in your own backyard, because we are all in this together. And it doesn't take long for ideas to cross and have influence across borders, in this day and age.

[Joshpantera]

57 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Tell him no, you cannot voice any dissent towards any group... except Christians. Oh boy are we happy to let our big guns here tear into any poor mite looking to save lost souls.

 

And don't seem to care in the least whether or not members here have christian friends and relatives. And don't leave the site in a huff because we said something inflammatory about their christian friends and relatives. 

 

57 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I can assure you 2 billion Christians think WE should be silenced and dumped in hell for our views of Christianity. Be careful how we tread in this discussion. People who want to silence others only want to silence that which they disagree with. So depending on which group has power depends on who/what gets silenced, and silencing people only leads to silence.

 

These are deeper reasons as to why we prefer to keep thought, speech and expression free. And also why with more experience we tend to shy away from, "church think." 

 

 

[Fweethawt]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So do I think we should let Joe Blogg .....

Finally, you guys are talking about someone else! I was beginning to think this was all about me! 

[duderonomy]

11 minutes ago, Fweethawt said:

Finally, you guys are talking about someone else! I was beginning to think this was all about me! 

 

Joe Blogg is what we call you sometimes. Sorry you had to hear it from me.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

To say that prejudice and intolerance are dying out, is incredibly naive, when you look at human history down the last few thousand years, and human nature. 

 

So then inequality has been increasing, not decreasing?

 

Civil rights has moved back wards, and black people are now back to having their own bathrooms, water fountains, and are forced to the back seats of buses? The current proposal on the table, legally, then is to return slavery and have all of the blacks round up and put to work in south Georgia cotton fields? 

 

How did I miss those headlines? 

 

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

In fact, we have some people inflaming and encouraging prejudice, in quite high places as well, today.

 

Seriously though, I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, or trying to win some pissing context by technicality as if we're in a formal debate, but I am curious about you citing the above so I can read the context of what you're trying to claim here. 

 

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Look at human history. We are just barely removed from slavery, when you put it into perspective. A mere decade or two ago we finally closed our last doors to residential schools in Canada, where we forcefully tried to remove the native from the native, and strip them of a cultural identity and their very dignity. Hell, look at our discussion threads on aboriginal topics on Canadian news sites, now they are a real eye opener! Look at how 'advanced' some african nations are in regards to LGBTQ rights. Don't only look in your own backyard, because we are all in this together. And it doesn't take long for ideas to cross and have influence across borders, in this day and age.

 

And yet, when Larry Elder (a black male intellectual) challenged Dave Rubin (a gay married man, now democrat deconvert) to give him one example of systemic racism here in American, he was deer in the headlights. And following that discussion completely changed his views on racism based on Elder's argument. Then had him on the Rubin Report three consecutive times again extending this line of reasoning. And explaining why one dominant political party in the US is invested in intellectually dishonest claims for the sake of the black vote. When in fact, systemic racism is irrelevant now. This is the intellectual argument of Elder, a black male:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqVNPwsLNo

 

So if this isn't the case in Canada, or Africa, I sure hope the world bandwagons the US in this instance. When pretty anywhere you go in the world people couldn't prove any claims of systemic racism, that would be a big step forward for sure. And I'm with the Jewish Canadian centrist, Steven Pinker, as well, in terms of the world ultimately getting better. I've been listening to hours long pod casts on the topic of, "Enlightenment Now." 

 

I'm very optimistic, in fact. 

 

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So then inequality has been increasing, not decreasing?

 

Civil rights has moved back wards, and black people are now back to having their own bathrooms, water fountains, and are forced to the back seats of buses? The current proposal on the table, legally, then is to return slavery and have all of the blacks round up and put to work in south Georgia cotton fields? 

 

How did I miss those headlines? 

 

7 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Seriously though, I'm not trying argue for the sake of arguing or trying to win some pissing context by technicality, but I am curious about you citing the above so I read the context of what you're trying to claim here. 

 

And yet, when Larry Elder challenged Rubin to give him one example of systemic racism here in American, he was deer in the headlights. And following that discussion completely changed his views on racism based on Elder's argument. Then had him on the Rubin Report three consecutive times again extending this line of reasoning. And explaining why one dominant political party in the US is invested in intellectually dishonest claims for the sake of the vote. When in fact, it's completely irrelevant now. This the intellectual argument of Elder, a black male. 

 

So if this isn't the case in Canada, or Africa, I sure hope the world bandwagons the US in this instance. When pretty anywhere you go in the world people couldn't prove any claims of systemic racism, that would be step forward for sure. And I'm with the Jewish Canadian centrist, Steven Pinker, as well, in terms of the world ultimately getting better. I've been listening to hours long pod casts on this topic, "Enlightenment Now." 

 

I'm very optimistic, in fact. 

 

 

If this is actually going to turn into a debate about whether institutionalized and systemic racism exists, I'm not even going to go there. Not a topic I'm going to debate with you, but I can assure you, systemic and institutionalized racism exists, if for no other reason, for the fact that human bias exists.

[LogicalFallacy]

47 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

To say that prejudice and intolerance are dying out, is incredibly naive, when you look at human history down the last few thousand years, and human nature. Prejudice and intolerance on the basis of race, sexual orientation, gender identification, religion etc hasn't gone anywhere.

 

You know I value you as a friend, so please take what I say next in that light.

 

Your statement above is factually incorrect. In the last several hundred years since the enlightenment there have been huge strides towards tolerance and acceptance. In the last 50 years we've seen laws reversed regarding homosexuality being criminal, and laws updated to allow gay marriage. Just the other month Australia voted to allow gay marriage, Ireland vote to allow abortion rights. To say prejudice and intolerance hasn't gone anywhere is factually incorrect. Horrendously so.

 

I'd suggest reading Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker.

 

 

Have we got things perfect? Of course not, no one is arguing that. But things have gone somewhere.... quite a long way. We look forward to continuing this trend.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You know I value you as a friend, so please take what I say next in that light.

 

Your statement above is factually incorrect. In the last several hundred years since the enlightenment there have been huge strides towards tolerance and acceptance. In the last 50 years we've seen laws reversed regarding homosexuality being criminal, and laws updated to allow gay marriage. Just the other month Australia voted to allow gay marriage, Ireland vote to allow abortion rights. To say prejudice and intolerance hasn't gone anywhere is factually incorrect. Horrendously so.

 

I'd suggest reading Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker.

 

 

Have we got things perfect? Of course no, no one is arguing that.

Hey, I wasn't say we haven't gotten anywhere. I was saying, beware of the belief that we can't go backwards.

[LogicalFallacy]

Just now, TruthSeeker0 said:

Hey, I wasn't say we haven't gotten anywhere. I was saying, beware of the belief that we can't go backwards.

 

Ah. Well I read that wrong then.

 

I'm well aware we can go backwards. I think imposing limits on speech you don't like is going backwards so I'm well aware that we can get a regression.

 

That's why lefties like Sam Harris and Stephen Fry are worried about the regressive left.

[Joshpantera]

22 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

If this is actually going to turn into a debate about whether institutionalized and systemic racism exists, I'm not even going to go there. Not a topic I'm going to debate with you, but I can assure you, systemic and institutionalized racism exists, if for no other reason, for the fact that human bias exists.

 

You understand then, that it can't be proven based on assuming that human bias should mean that systemic racism still exists in the US. It's probably more likely that it doesn't exist now because it's long since been purged from the system. That's a step forward, not back. It doesn't mean that human bias or racist views don't exist on individual levels, but it says a lot about the system. The civil rights movement was before I was born. I've seen nothing but advancement in equality over the course of life. 

 

And most importantly, thinking like this doesn't belittle the importance of standing up for and siding with the Native Canadians. They're still deserving of support, as is the black community in the US. It's just about "truth seeking," and acknowledging truths as they are discovered regardless of whether or not they gel with what people have been claiming on a preferred side of politics. It's entirely possible that they are wrong. Being open to that leaves the truth seeking path wide open and not closed off.  

[Joshpantera]

13 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

You know I value you as a friend, so please take what I say next in that light.

 

I hope I'm not too much of a pain in the ass to make it to friend status with truthseeker0, I think she's pretty cool. I like the strong mindedness. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I hope I'm not too much of a pain in the ass to make it to friend status with truthseeker0, I think she's pretty cool. I like the strong mindedness. 

You INTJs exhaust me a bit, you know. You are absolutely relentless in the search for knowledge, facts, data, and figuring it all out. But logic only goes so far. You should know that, if you've read the INTJ profile Thanks for the compliment, I have developed a much thicker skin after leaving religion, and being able to debate things with people that I know aren't critiquing me, but my ideas. And I have always been strong minded, it's just that now it shows more, I'm no longer the doormat I was in a lot of ways when I was religious.

[Joshpantera]

3 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

You INTJs exhaust me a bit, you know. You are absolutely relentless in the search for knowledge, facts, data, and figuring it all out. But logic only goes so far. You should know that, if you've read the INTJ profile Thanks for the compliment, I have developed a much thicker skin after leaving religion, and being able to debate things with people that I know aren't critiquing me, but my ideas. And I have always been strong minded, it's just that now it shows more, I'm no longer the doormat I was in a lot of ways when I was religious.

 

Middle ground is attainable. I can feel it! 

[Eowynesque]

In my assessment of how things play out here, someone posts something generally considered distasteful. The "thinker" types are more content to tolerate this speech and let the thread die and the "feeler" types struggle with ignoring it because of how they imagine it can affect people. As a feeler type I feel (haha) that there is not enough challenging of the argument to argument type (as is wisely advocated as a counter to bigoted opinions) to offset the -ism speech. While there is power in not giving this content a platform, there is also the consequence that silence appears to many as assent.

[Joshpantera]

The other issue of intolerance is the issue of theistic and / or "woo woo" ex christians.

 

This veers off the political problems back to religion and spirituality. As a whole, ex christian spirituality has been harshly criticized to the point of looking as if the atheist majority is intolerant of it. Complaints have been made. Threads have been started to try and hash it out. Many have left because they feel unwelcome. When I first came here there was a fairly large ex christian spiritual presence. At least it felt that way. I was personally greeted in PM by A-Man, who proceeded to go into a lengthy mystical discussion. And there was moderation energy geared towards defending non christian spiritual practices and beliefs. Pantheistic philosophy was being pushed pretty regularly. 

 

When I returned from a long hiatus of being burned out on forums, and going through a divorce, the place was nearly devoid of that representation. And more people were jumping ship as I arrived back. Question the materialist status quo, suffer the blow. So I've had to stand by and pay the price for free speech seeing spiritual oriented friends jump ship like rats on a sinking tanker. What's the alternative? Go after the atheists and shut them down? Ban them from arguing with non materialists? These aren't options. And the site has dwindled one particular faction of non believers because of it. I err on the side of letting it go, though. I can't expect materialist's not to engage non materialists, or not challenge claims because someone might not be able to take being challenged. 

 

I guess I just wish that my friends who have left because of the dominant atheist presence were a little more thick skinned about it. The spiritual minded folks became uninterested or intolerant of the views expressed here. So in this other example, being more tolerant of opposing views could have gone a long way. As would finding middle ground. I think middle ground is attainable in this case too, but it requires a certain amount of effort to get there. No one's nearly as concerned about these losses it would seem - no lobbying for change. And that's too bad. Because I am. The mixing pot around here should be much more diverse than it currently is, IMO. But it's up to people toughing it out more than anything else. The lobby for tolerance of intolerance includes this. I'm tolerant of people who are intolerant of spiritual thinking. So I don't find it off putting or personal. I explore things like the primacy of consciousness without a care in the world who lines up to try and negate those things. And I challenge people to try and negate certain theories or the results of certain experiments. It's about searching for truths, you won't get there without getting your hands dirty sometimes....

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Eowynesque said:

In my assessment of how things play out here, someone posts something generally considered distasteful. The "thinker" types are more content to tolerate this speech and let the thread die and the "feeler" types struggle with ignoring it because of how they imagine it can affect people. As a feeler type I feel (haha) that there is not enough challenging of the argument to argument type (as is wisely advocated as a counter to bigoted opinions) to offset the -ism speech. While there is power in not giving this content a platform, there is also the consequence that silence appears to many as assent.

That's about it, in a nutshell. The logical types are placing priority on tolerating such speech, and the feeler types are definitely having trouble understanding why this is so, because it does have a real consequence. How many people in America now feel empowered to voice their intolerance of people of colour, because Trump has not been very vocal at all in opposing the alt right and the opinions that they propagate. Silence appears to be assent, and in doing so, it empowers people with prejudice and intolerance to become more vocal. And if you think there isn't power in numbers, when combined with intolerance and prejudice, think again.

[Joshpantera]

19 minutes ago, Eowynesque said:

In my assessment of how things play out here, someone posts something generally considered distasteful. The "thinker" types are more content to tolerate this speech and let the thread die and the "feeler" types struggle with ignoring it because of how they imagine it can affect people. As a feeler type I feel (haha) that there is not enough challenging of the argument to argument type (as is wisely advocated as a counter to bigoted opinions) to offset the -ism speech. While there is power in not giving this content a platform, there is also the consequence that silence appears to many as assent.

 

Thank you! This just got more interesting. Please continue. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

I guess I just wish that my friends who have left because of the dominant atheist presence were a little more thick skinned about it. The spiritual minded folks became uninterested or intolerant of the views expressed here. So in this other example, being more tolerant of opposing views could have gone a long way. As would finding middle ground. I think middle ground is attainable in this case too, but it requires a certain amount of effort to get there. No one's nearly as concerned about these losses it would seem - no lobbying for change. And that's too bad. Because I am. The mixing pot around here should be much more diverse than it currently is, IMO. But it's up to people toughing it out more than anything else. The lobby for tolerance of intolerance includes this. I'm tolerant of people who are intolerant of spiritual thinking. So I don't find it off putting or personal. 

 

Josh, you should keep in mind that you are likely much more thick skinned, in comparison to some other types of people. It's not so much that people become intolerant of the views expressed, as that they get tired and worn down because they are idealistic and principled, and they place value on different things. And when they get exhausted, it's better for them to leave, as they feel overridden and outnumbered, and therefore it fulfills nothing for them anymore. I have been close to that myself. I rarely feel understood here (I should qualify that, I mean in certain areas on this site), and feeling understood and valued is important. And people will seek communities where they feel like they belong and they aren't constantly being challenged. At least the majority of people. Maybe you thrive on that, but not everybody does.