LogicalFallacy

Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Making the ToT subforum password protected would be a good interim step.

 

No. People need to learn how to behave reasonably. They will learn. Everybody has a pretty good idea of where the line is, it's just that some don't give a shit. They will give a shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



6 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

No. People need to learn how to behave reasonably. They will learn. Everybody has a pretty good idea of where the line is, it's just that some don't give a shit. They will give a shit.

 

Well, until that transition is implemented making the ToT subforum password protected would be a good interim step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEFINITIONS

 

Bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Behavior: a) act or conduct oneself in a specified way, especially toward others

                  b) conduct oneself in accordance with the accepted norms of a society or group

Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

Examples of opinions:

 

a) I like sandwiches.

b) I don't think two men should get married.

c) I am gay, I should be able to get married too.

d) Fwee meant _______, he thinks ______, ______, and ______

e) I do not believe in a god

f) I do believe in a god.

g) Healthcare should be universal

h) Women deserve to be respected

i) You should behave yourself in _____ way

j) F**k n****rs / I think the jews should be exterminated based on their inferior race.

l) Words have power, speech should be censored and platforms controlled

m) Words don't mean shit, I can say what I want

n) People of Color/LGBTQ folks/Marginalized Groups are victims and should be protected

o) People of Color/LGBTQ folks/Marginalized are not victims and should not be protected anymore than anyone else

p) You should not say that word, it is offensive

q) You don't have to do what other people say you should/should not do

r) You are a bigot.

s) Progress is _______, regression would be _________

t) Morality is socially constructed

u) People who think _____ is right are morally reprehensible

v) _______ is bigotry/racist/sexist/a hate crime/repugnant

w) I'm right, they're wrong

 

I could go on, but we pretty much all just have opinions on things. Let the intolerant continue to declare what they will not tolerate, let the tolerant continue to tolerate it. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 9:28 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

I have a problem with calling someone a bigot (Even if I think they are) By calling someone a bigot, doesn't this make that person a bigot? A bigot is basically a person who is intolerant of the views and opinions of others. By telling someone else their thoughts, values, and opinions don't count because they are intolerant you are essentially being the very thing you are railing against. In saying that your opinion is bigoted therefore I won't tolerated it you are being intolerant yourself... simply because you think your cause is just and theirs isn't.

 

I've seen this style of argument more than a few times. I think it has a couple of glaring weaknesses. I'm sure it would take more discussion to tease out exactly how you understand it, so I'm going to talk more generally, and if I argue against some position you don't hold I hope you won't think I'm trying too hard to misrepresent you, I'm just treating this quote as a jumping off point. I'm going to break things into two categories of problem from my perspective

 

1) Over-reliance on simple dictionary definitions, especially of the word "tolerance" or "intolerance"

 

In a nutshell, it's just silly to think that "tolerance", as people really use the word in this context, means either tolerance of literally every point of view or else the person advocating for "tolerance" is being inconsistent. In practice we all, as individuals and societies, are "intolerant" of many ideas and behaviors, and we sanction people who express certain views or act in certain ways. I am intolerant of murder and would happily express a strongly negative view of someone's belief that murder was good, and it's ludicrous to label that intolerance as bigotry towards the opinion that murder is good, as I hope everyone would agree. Yet you are appealing to a definition of bigotry in which I would be bigoted by expressing intolerance for the opinion that murder is good. I think it's implicit in the usage of the term "bigotry" that it involves "intolerance" not just in some abstract sense but of something that ought to be tolerated. That's why definitions of bigotry often also reference the idea of prejudice. Not all judgements are prejudicial, and not every condemnation of some opinion or act is bigoted.

 

2) Equivocation between different kinds of behavior caused by oversimplifying everything to "tolerance" vs "intolerance" and focusing on speech

 

We care about bigotry not just because we are offended by what people say, but because of concern for the consequences of what people and institutions do. This is true whether we're talking about racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, xenophobia towards immigrants or refugees, or whatever else. The problem of racism is not primarily a problem of what people say, it's a problem of systematically reproduced inequality and discrimination. The same is true of all the other categories I mentioned that people are about. I think some people have a tendency, and I think it's amplified by the way media tends to cover these issues, to reduce the question to competing speech acts and the idea of things being offensive. Someone "says something racist" and then someone calls them racist for it. And thus you end up with this intuition, like the one you expressed, that the question is all about whose speech is legitimate. But if I call something racist I am far more concerned with the real-world outcomes associated with it -- even if it's a belief I'm calling racist. I'm concerned about inequality. What is really offensive is the way we treat people. We should be careful we don't equivocate speech with discrimination.

 

That said, the relationship between ideology/speech and real-world discrimination is obviously complicated. While people may hold prejudiced beliefs without acting in an overtly discriminatory manner, there's no doubt that prejudiced beliefs are important to the maintenance of the institutions and systems that perpetuate real discrimination. There's plenty of research on this. What people say and believe is also important because it can't be completely separated from what we, individually and collectively, do.

 

So, if you value equal justice for all people regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or membership in some other social category, and you want to see the world become more just in this way, there is no doubt that changing people's attitudes is an important part of realizing that goal. Social sanctions are an important way in which people are socialized to understand and appreciate values like the idea that "all men are created equal". At the same time the repetition of prejudices is important to the reproduction of inequality. Neither expressing prejudicial beliefs nor calling people bigoted for doing so are superficial acts, although obviously there's more to activism than just yelling at people.

 

But to try to put this together, I think considerations along these lines point to the problem of saying that someone pointing out bigotry is necessarily being bigoted. Obviously details matter. Someone can be prejudicial in their assessment of someone else's bigotry. I'm not saying that every time someone calls someone racist/sexist/whatever they are right. But neither are they always wrong, as is implied by saying that in every case it is bigoted to call something bigoted. Nor is it reasonable to make all negative expressions about people's views equivalent to discrimination.

 

Note: the above is not even attempting to deal with more context-dependent questions about how people go about discussing things with each other on this forum, which is important also (as compared to what views they express). My opinion is that it would be silly, if discussing this forum, to only talk about what points of view are tolerable while ignoring the trolling, hostility and unwillingness to engage in good faith discussion that is as large of a problem. But mostly my point is just that I think it's a bad place to start to think that expressing a strongly negative opinion of someone's views is always equally abhorrent regardless of the content of the views expressed. We ought to tolerate some views less than others, and note that what it means to "tolerate" can vary dramatically. I said I was intolerant of murder but I didn't mean I would kill someone for saying it was good. What the moderation of this forum ought to tolerate is an open question I'm not trying to settle in this post.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Well, until that transition is implemented making the ToT subforum password protected would be a good interim step.

I agree. I have no hopes of the ToT becoming an area where people are reasonable. Isn't the purpose of this site largely to support those going through deconversion, and those looking for a support network? If the ToT was password protected, those coming across this site wouldn't immediately be subjected to that content, and possibly turned off by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I haven't attacked anyone here. I have attacked intolerance of who people fundamentally are at their core, (I even said, irregardless of what the case was here with Fwee) and why I think it's dangerous. I stated that I had in mind an end goal, and that was: what benefits society, what doesn't hurt?

So, witch hunt and inquisition is a bit much. For 36 years, I lived in a community where there was strict intolerance of gays and lesbians, and they were often the brunt of scorn and ridicule. 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?

 

No, this does not mean nothing. I actually think this is a very important point.

 

Free speech is one thing. Anything goes is another. My opinion is that ideas should be allowed to be expressed, in general. But sometimes, over time, society makes up its mind about certain things. And, in these cases, it becomes no longer acceptable to express certain views. For example, the idea that slavery is ok is decided at this point. And this is a good thing. We call it "progress". "Slavery is ok" isn't even really an idea anymore. To assert it and expect to be taken seriously would be roughly akin to saying "maybe the Earth is flat!" and expecting to be taken seriously. Still, you should be allowed to express the view. You just shouldn't be surprised if society labels you as ignorant because of it. And, perhaps, you shouldn't be surprised if certain platforms do not permit that kind of speech. (I am not referring to anything or anyone in particular here, nor am I implying that Ex-C should censor certain types of free speech; just making a point).

 

We do need to appreciate that some people are further along the journey toward tolerance than others. This entails that, on issues which are not entirely decided, opinions must be allowed to be expressed. Then we discuss them, and the conversation moves forward. Progress ensues. Or doesn't, as the case may be. But the conversation is vital. Without the conversation, progress ends.

 

5 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. You even started a thread where we discussed personality differences, and the ways in which people think, and how these are different. Can we get no recognition that people are different, and yes, they place higher and lower value on some things, and that that doesn't somehow make them better or lesser beings? 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.

 

I think both your point and Josh's have merit.

 

It seems to me that people who are deconverting often "over-correct", and become somewhat closed-minded as a result. Over time, as we continue to recover, our horizons may expand. Speaking for myself only, I can say that there are conversations that I am now able to have that I could not have engaged in five to seven years ago, when I was a new Ex-Christian. Now, I was well-indoctrinated. The mind-fuck was strong with me. Christianity has profoundly affected who I am, and how I think. I'm "fully deconverted" now, and have been for a while, but I still can't say who I would be or how I would think if I had never been a Christian. This is just how it is. So I think the idea that people who are "fully deconverted" can sometimes engage in conversations that new deconverts will struggle with has merit, because my personal experience indicates that this is so.

 

Having said that, it is also true that people will still disagree, even when they are "fully deconverted". Josh and I disagree fairly strongly about guns, for example. But we carry on, and we respect each other. BAA and I used to disagree all the time, sometimes quite strongly. But we respected each other. Others here have disagreed with me about lots of things, and do disagree with me about lots of things. But we respect each other (for the most part). This is the most important thing, in my opinion. Respect. (I am not implying that you, personally, have disrespected anyone, nor would I do so; just making a point). 

 

I know we have recently discussed this term in ToT ad nauseam, and I know that some here maintain that people do not inherently deserve respect. From an academic perspective, I don't necessarily disagree with this point of view. That's as it may be. But it seems to me that if we want to have the kind of forum that does not haemorrhage members, we would do well to accord one another a certain basic level of respect. @ag_NO_stic very wisely said that it makes things go more smoothly. I think we've reached the point where what we deserve is beside the point. What kind of forum do we want to have? This is a question that we all need to consider very carefully.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 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.

The value of a personality test like the MBTI is not in providing pinpoint accuracy, but giving at least a template for which to chart common human temperamental human differences which fundamentally change the way we individually experience the world.  If we want to take consciousness seriously, then we have to consider just how radically different cognitive states for individuals who perhaps might have a a difference in cognitive temperamental disposition and how that has influenced by the events that happen to us and the cultural beliefs which we use to interpret those experiences.  Human beings are remarkably complex and different, and those complexities exist across cultures to the entirety of the human race, and insulting that dignity and ability hard worn over time for all people's of the world by the sweat of mothers, fathers and communities to survive in this crazy world.  

 

I will divide between what a person believes and also regard personality factors, which most often correlate and I think for good reason.  We are observing human cognitive neurodiversity, and part of the utility of human communication is that it can be corrective, and say, no that's wrong.  But when you then get caught up in a cultural history with hundreds of years of oppression of certain emergent social communities in the modern time, it can be tiresome to have to chalk intellectual cruelty of that variety with much reasoned effort.  Further contextualize it to the era of Trump, and for me it seems weird that people around here are now concerned about the divisiveness along cultural and political lines.  Some people in America are trying to go a direction which I believe are fundamentally wrong, and I will not go quietly into that future, so excuse me for my impassioned concern.  Somethings that happen in this world should not be met with impassioned reason, we need to expand our consciousness.  

 

Quote

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.

I too read Mein Kampf like DI, one really had to understand his vision of that he outlined in those pages to see the rational trajectory he took to implement his deranged ideas about the superiority of the VolksDeutsche and their need for Libensraum.  As well as his perversion of truth as a political and propagandist weapon to mobilize for his cause. 

 

I think a person should encounter every manner of belief which exists in society (some fetishes could be passed up though I'm sure), but I think that should be done in certain contexts for particular beliefs.  For instance I wouldn't invite Richard Spencer to my class to explain economic nationalism, I would invite an expert in comparative economics to speak on it.  We aren't idiots, Richard Spencer's beliefs are antithetical to society as it is organized now, and to give him a platform to propagate his ideas is just a bad idea.  Not only will it offend most sensible people, but it would give him an outlet to recruit and propagandize to students.  

 

No one can show up to the 21st Century after what happened in the 20th Century and think that such ideas should be encountered with an open and interested mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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." 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :HappyCry:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fweethawt said:

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

 

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

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now