Hypocritical Tolerance?

[Flameblade]

"I can tolerate anything, except intolerance."
If you have someone who is incredibly open to other ideas and different peoples, but can't stand to deal with people who aren't, is this hypocrisy?

If so, is it necessarily a bad sort of hypocrisy?

Is hypocrisy a truly bad thing to begin with?

If you tolerate the presence and activity of bigotry, does that make you tolerant?

This is something that has bugged me for a long while. Does allowing those who would kill others for being different from them, to go about make you like them?

Guilty by Association or Innocent by Ideology?

[Darth Wong]

"I can tolerate anything, except intolerance."
If you have someone who is incredibly open to other ideas and different peoples, but can't stand to deal with people who aren't, is this hypocrisy?

If so, is it necessarily a bad sort of hypocrisy?

Is hypocrisy a truly bad thing to begin with?

If you tolerate the presence and activity of bigotry, does that make you tolerant?

This is something that has bugged me for a long while. Does allowing those who would kill others for being different from them, to go about make you like them?

Guilty by Association or Innocent by Ideology?

So you're saying that if someone believes intolerance is bad, he's a hypocrite for ... not tolerating intolerance? His position is that intolerance is bad! There is nothing hypocritical about saying that intolerance is bad, and then not allowing intolerance. This is just bullshit word-play from the Bill O'Reilly camp and his worthless idiot followers.

"Tolerance of intolerance" is like "the right to take away other peoples' rights" (which, coincidentally, is a common attitude among the very same people who tend to use this idiotic "tolerance of intolerance" argument, usually because they're conservative fucktards who hate gay marriage etc and wish the blacks had been kept in their place).

[Flameblade]

I thought that it might make for an interesting discussion amongst those on the board who are better at expressing these sorts of thoughts than I am.

As it is, I was raised by the "conservative fucktards" who used this sort of argument and I've been trying to figure out a way to put my disquiet with the idea into words. They've always said that my impatience with their bigotry was "being hypocrisy(sic)". Quite frankly, I've always been ready to explode and beat them with a clue-by-four by that point and have found that anger isn't the best emotion to feel when trying to come up with a reasonable answer to that sort of question.

While on the subject, I should say thank you for SD.net as I've finally been able to pin down this sort of thing for the first time. Can you imagine how annoying it is to be around YEC and not have the speaking skills to smack them down? I nearly cried with fucking joy when I was sent the url for Creationism versus Science. I've managed to knock some sense into some of my family since then.

[Darth Wong]

Another thing to keep in mind is that when people say that you should be tolerant, they are talking about being tolerant of social non-conformity. Back when the term first came into vogue, people used to say that in its entirety, but nowadays they just contract it to "tolerance". That short-form is what allows conservative dipshits to distort it into "tolerance of everything, even intolerance".

There have always been people who think that anyone who doesn't act like everyone else should be ostracized, punished, or even violently attacked. And they have always looked for excuses to continue behaving in this manner even though it is pointlessly destructive and produces no tangible positive benefit. This "tolerance of intolerance" idea is just another example.

This whole line of reasoning reminds me of the people who think that if you're against violence, you shouldn't raise a hand to stop someone from punching you in the face.

[Flameblade]

Another thing to keep in mind is that when people say that you should be tolerant, they are talking about being tolerant of social non-conformity. Back when the term first came into vogue, people used to say that in its entirety, but nowadays they just contract it to "tolerance". That short-form is what allows conservative dipshits to distort it into "tolerance of everything, even intolerance".

Which would obviously be in the conservatives favour, undermining the meaning of a "dangerous" idea. It's ideological warfare on an Orwellian scale. He who controls the words, controls the thoughts. That's disgusting.

There have always been people who think that anyone who doesn't act like everyone else should be ostracized, punished, or even violently attacked. And they have always looked for excuses to continue behaving in this manner even though it is pointlessly destructive and produces no tangible positive benefit. This "tolerance of intolerance" idea is just another example.

So would that make me just like them if I wanted to knock any and all of them senseless for being bigoted pigs? Because I have a problem with wanting to do that, far too much.

This whole line of reasoning reminds me of the people who think that if you're against violence, you shouldn't raise a hand to stop someone from punching you in the face.

Yeah, people who don't want to kill people are bad people and should be killed.

That sort of argument is truly stupid, and probably came from people who wanted to kill people for no good reason and then wanted to get away with pounding on those who didn't or some shit.

[Elaro]

I think what you mean, Flameblade, is the phrase "I'm bigoted against bigots", and the hypocrisy thereof.

The solution to that contradiction, I think, is that "normal" bigots hate without really knowing the object of their hate, while us "anti-bigots" hate because we know the object of our hate. Would we despise Bill O'Reilly if we didn't know what he stands for? Would some of us have danced on Falwell's grave if we ignored everything he said?

[Darth Wong]

I think what you mean, Flameblade, is the phrase "I'm bigoted against bigots", and the hypocrisy thereof.

The solution to that contradiction, I think, is that "normal" bigots hate without really knowing the object of their hate, while us "anti-bigots" hate because we know the object of our hate. Would we despise Bill O'Reilly if we didn't know what he stands for? Would some of us have danced on Falwell's grave if we ignored everything he said?

It's not bigotry to say that it's bad to be a bigot. There's no contradiction. The belief that it's a contradiction presumes that it's always bigotry to say negative things about any kind of behaviour, which is ridiculous. Is it "bigotry" to say that murder is bad too? These people are massively distorting the meaning of the word "bigot".

[Plekhanov]

"I can tolerate anything, except intolerance."
If you have someone who is incredibly open to other ideas and different peoples, but can't stand to deal with people who aren't, is this hypocrisy?

If so, is it necessarily a bad sort of hypocrisy?

Is hypocrisy a truly bad thing to begin with?

If you tolerate the presence and activity of bigotry, does that make you tolerant?

This is something that has bugged me for a long while. Does allowing those who would kill others for being different from them, to go about make you like them?

Guilty by Association or Innocent by Ideology?

It would be 'intolerant' using the proper definition of the word not to tolerate the mere 'presence.. of bigotry'.

People have a right to be racist, homophobic and so forth and basically hold whatever moronic opinions they choose. What they don't have a right to do is inflict that hatred on others either by hijacking the state to enforce their bigotry or by actively persecuting them in other ways.

This of course doesn't mean that it's intolerant to disagree with bigots so long as you acknowledge their right to exist.

[Sriad]

My default response to this psuedo-argument is "I love intolerance; I myself am pointedly intolerant of racism, sexists, willful ignorance, and many other forms of bigotry."

If one is willing to expend a bit of mental elbow grease, the flaws normally thought of as "intolerance" can all be labeled and disparaged at length and in painful detail if some clever-dick tries to go down the Intolerance of Intolerance road.

[Wyrm]

It surprises me that an exception to a general rule somehow constitutes "hypocracy", but then I remember who these people are.

People who claim such need to be whacked upside the head with a dictonary. Preferably Oxford. Dead tree version.

[Plekhanov]

It surprises me that an exception to a general rule somehow constitutes "hypocracy", but then I remember who these people are.

People who claim such need to be whacked upside the head with a dictonary. Preferably Oxford. Dead tree version.

It's not an exception though, social liberals generally make the argument that nonconformist lifestyles and activities should be 'tolerated' unless they objectively harm 3rd parties. They also generally argue for freedom of conscience and speech.

Neither of those stances are contradicted by arguing that activities which objectively harm 3rd parties should be prohibited or by publicly criticising ideas and activities you disagree with.

[Wyrm]

It's not an exception though, social liberals generally make the argument that nonconformist lifestyles and activities should be 'tolerated' unless they objectively harm 3rd parties. They also generally argue for freedom of conscience and speech.

Yes, I did read DW post on this matter. It's just that, even if you go with the neocons' retarded assertion that "tolerance" means tolerance for every position, then their analysis of the phrase still fails. Hypocrisy, after all, is defined by your actions contrary to your stated position, and the statement is clearly making an exception to a general rule of "tolerance" (if you take the neocons' retarded definition of "tolerance").

Basically, it's an "even if they're right, they're wrong," type argument.

[Surlethe]

It's not an exception though, social liberals generally make the argument that nonconformist lifestyles and activities should be 'tolerated' unless they objectively harm 3rd parties. They also generally argue for freedom of conscience and speech.

Yes, I did read DW post on this matter. It's just that, even if you go with the neocons' retarded assertion that "tolerance" means tolerance for every conceivable belief or position, then their analysis of the phrase still fails. Hypocrisy, after all, is defined by your actions contrary to your stated position, and the statement is clearly making an exception to a general rule of "tolerance" (if you take the neocons' retarded definition of "tolerance").

Basically, it's an "even if they're right, they're wrong," type argument.

Even then, if "tolerance" means tolerance for every position, you can opt out of saying that you're tolerant of every action. I think most people here would agree that everyone has a right to believe what they want (hell, more than a right: you can't control without brainwashing what a person believes), but putting those beliefs into practice is a different matter.