Interesting article

[enterprikayak]

It has been my observation that the people who scream the loudest about tolerance are usually the most intolerant of people.

Definitely know what you're saying. And yet I do know a lot of strident "tolerancies" who are not intolerant. Just loud and obnoxious.

[pookha]

Isn't demanding that someone else adhere to your standards of tolerance kind of a contradiction?

Yes, it's one of the more problematic things about people who demand tolerance.

It has been my observation that the people who scream the loudest about tolerance are usually the most intolerant of people.

perhaps for some ..
but then again i have seen a gay couple who had been together for years kept apart as one of them lay dying in a hospital by the intolerant family of the dying man.

that kind of thing sorta shades things a little.

[Bether6074]

I really hope you guys aren't talking about me. I never meant to scream about tolerance. I'm just not in a very good place right now...keep saying the wrong things. I'm sorry.

[Elessar]

Isn't demanding that someone else adhere to your standards of tolerance kind of a contradiction?

Yes, it's one of the more problematic things about people who demand tolerance.

It has been my observation that the people who scream the loudest about tolerance are usually the most intolerant of people.

lol, Rigil that's just your way of saying you don't like liberals

Does not being tolerant of intolerant people count as intolerance?

"There are only two things I can't stand: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures.... AND THE DUTCH!"

[Rigil Kent]

It has been my observation that the people who scream the loudest about tolerance are usually the most intolerant of people.

perhaps for some ..
but then again i have seen a gay couple who had been together for years kept apart as one of them lay dying in a hospital by the intolerant family of the dying man.

that kind of thing sorta shades things a little.

You have your anecdotal evidence, I have mine.

I really hope you guys aren't talking about me.

Nope.

lol, Rigil that's just your way of saying you don't like liberals

If the shoe fits. That wasn't the intention, mind you. I've interacted with social moderates as well as some politically correct conservatives (don't ask me how that's possible) who fit that bill to a tee. For the most part, however, (and this is not intended to be an insult or flame directed toward anyone who considers themselves to be "liberal"), I have noticed that "liberals" who scream for tolerance aren't very tolerant of people who don't agree with them on things. Hence, the ridiculous labeling of people, so as to belittle them.

Just my personal opinion and observation.

[CoffeeCat]

lol, Rigil that's just your way of saying you don't like liberals

I know this is directed towards Rigil, but I answered agreeing with him - so...

To be fair, I don't think all liberals are like that - there are a lot of good clear headed, common sense liberals out there - and this is a huge complement from someone who is politically inclined to be conservative (I'm not a rabid right-winger - I'm an independent conservative who supports the Constitution party if anyone's curious)

Does not being tolerant of intolerant people count as intolerance?

I would think that it does. I'm so tired of hearing this cliche' touted as an excuse for hypocrisy. People who are labeled as "intolerant" by a bunch of left wing radicals (I'm not suggesting you are a rabid radical - but that is where the cliche' comes from) - the "Intolerant people" are still PEOPLE with OPINIONS who are not being even considered because of the villainization and prejudging by radicals who think they know it all and are the high priests of humanist morality. My answer to that is not everyone in this country is a practicing humanist and should not be expected to follow that uppity form of religion.

I'm sorry if that came out as harsh - you know I'm not normally like that - it's just that the saying doesn't make any sense at all - either you tolerate or don't tolerate, but please don't make excuses for intolerance.

"There are only two things I can't stand: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures.... AND THE DUTCH!"

Dutch? What about the French?

[Elessar]

lol, Rigil that's just your way of saying you don't like liberals

I know this is directed towards Rigil, but I answered agreeing with him - so...

To be fair, I don't think all liberals are like that - there are a lot of good clear headed, common sense liberals out there - and this is a huge complement from someone who is politically inclined to be conservative (I'm not a rabid right-winger - I'm an independent conservative who supports the Constitution party if anyone's curious)

You're right, it's just that the line clearly spoke of an experience being accused of being intolerant by someone the speaker clearly did not consider tolerant himself. As nobody's argued, liberals are often the ones arguing for tolerance. That doesn't mean they are always tolerant or never tolerant. People's personal past often dictate what they're tolerant of and intolerant of more than their political affiliations. For example, if something hurt them in their past (their sister was raped by an escaped con), then they're not likely to be tolerant of so-called "reformed" prisoners. But lacking an obvious behaviorally modifying experience like that one, the question of whether someone who preaches tolerance practices tolerance comes down to that more general quality of hypocrisy.

Does not being tolerant of intolerant people count as intolerance?

I would think that it does. I'm so tired of hearing this cliche' touted as an excuse for hypocrisy. People who are labeled as "intolerant" by a bunch of left wing radicals (I'm not suggesting you are a rabid radical - but that is where the cliche' comes from) - the "Intolerant people" are still PEOPLE with OPINIONS who are not being even considered because of the villainization and prejudging by radicals who think they know it all and are the high priests of humanist morality. My answer to that is not everyone in this country is a practicing humanist and should not be expected to follow that uppity form of religion.

I'm sorry if that came out as harsh - you know I'm not normally like that - it's just that the saying doesn't make any sense at all - either you tolerate or don't tolerate, but please don't make excuses for intolerance.

It was a rhetorical question for the sake of the irony of the verbage - don't intimate the existence of a presumed answer that isn't there. Again, you jumped on the defensive as if you've been accused, or least felt accused by the liberal base of being an intolerant conservative. Maybe you just don't think it's fair that conservatives are sometimes generalized as intolerant. And, I really hope you're not saying the only people preaching tolerance are left wing radicals, or that tolerance is a left-wing radical idea. If we operated judicially on that premise for the next 50 years, I think stock in bed sheets and giant wooden crosses would go through the roof

I'm not making excuses for intolerance -- security, nationalism, purity of blood, economic stability and progress, safety of family; those are excuses for intolerance.

"There are only two things I can't stand: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures.... AND THE DUTCH!"

Dutch? What about the French?

I don't get people's distaste for the French. Don't we like freedom and liberty? Sure as hell wasn't an American invention. The Iruqois gave us the idea the French wrote the ground rules, not to mention funded the war. You'd think we give them SOME credit. If the reaction to the French is simply because their opinions regarding the Iraq War or war in general are at characterizable as anti-war at the least and pacifist at the best, then isn't crucifying them for it just another form of intolerance? Tolerance doesn't have to mean believing somebody's right. You can think the French don't know what the real world is about if they think they can survive in it as pacifists, but hating them because they oppose is as intolerant as censoring the press.


ADMIN HAT: We're off topic but as long as it stays civil, lets go head and roll with it.

[JadziaKathryn]

Dutch? What about the French?

Cheese, pastries, rich history -what's not to like?

[CoffeeCat]

It was a rhetorical question for the sake of the irony of the verbage - don't intimate the existence of a presumed answer that isn't there.

Well - If I didn't, I'm pretty sure Rigil might have.

Again, you jumped on the defensive as if you've been accused, or least felt accused by the liberal base of being an intolerant conservative.

Yep. I sure did jump on the defensive. But it wasn't doing it because I think I'm an intolerant conservative.

I think I'm normally a very tolerant individual who is fully capable of also being intolerant when I feel I have to be. And I don't think it should be considered an offense to admit when you are intolerant because a lot of intolerance is actually righteous indignation and fully justified. So if I display any form of intolerance, the saying is usually a convenient excuse for people who want to disagree with me but don't have the balls for a civil debate. When I saw it, I had a knee jerk reaction to it. I apologize.

There are a lot of things in this world that I think deserve intolerance (such as the greedy corporatizing of America, ignorance, and the present administration).

Maybe you just don't think it's fair that conservatives are sometimes generalized as intolerant.

Very perceptive. That's exactly what I was getting at.

I'm not making excuses for intolerance -- security, nationalism, purity of blood, economic stability and progress, safety of family; those are excuses for intolerance.

We aren't that politically different when you get right down too it. The differences are all in the semantics.

I don't get people's distaste for the French.

I was just kidding.

[Elessar]

LOL, I didn't know you were kidding about the French. I thought you were serious! Include a smiley!

Yeah it sounds like we're on mostly the same page. The tricky part of "being intolerant when intolerance is called for" is that I don't think "having an intolerant opinion" is being intolerant, IF it's called for... It's semantics but I think it's an important distinction. For example, when Israeli artillery positions hit a Palestinian village and kill 200 civilians and zero militants and then an investigation finds they knew there were no militants there but were hoping to discourage recruitment or sympathy for militants, I would believe Israel deserves to be punished -- but I wouldn't call it "being intolerant of militarism when it calls for it", I'd just call it trying to do the ethical thing.

The other thing is, in a debate, like you said, it would be hard for someone who doesn't know you very well to understand when you speak out against something that it's not like an intolerant opinion of that thing in general but rather a specific opinion. Like I said, if someone didn't know me, they might think I had a buried antisemitism because I can't stand Israel, but I can't stand Israel because their military is so brutal, which has nothing to do with being Jewish. So I can see where people might call you intolerant if you speak out against something, but I wouldn't use the word "intolerant" in its most general and "face value" definition when referring to specific events like "being intolerant of robbery", I wouldn't call a form of intolerance. I guess I could generalize and say that being intolerant of bad things isn't bad

[CX]

The US and France have, ironically enough given the current topic of discussion, basically just tolerated each other, ever since colonial times. When we were still England's colonies, the French were our enemies, and they are who we fought during the Seven Years' war (aka the French and Indian war). The French helped us out in our revolution to get back at Britain for kicking them out of the Americas, and th US very nearly went to war with France when they imprisoned the ambassadors we sent to discuss repayment for their assistance during our revolution. This pattern continued when Britain and France kept having privateers attacking our ships. Eventualy we went after Britain instead, which is a big part of the reason we had the war of 1812. When the US provided assitance in both world wars, the French looked down their noses at our forces. DeGualle was not Anglo or American friendly. More recently, France made our aircraft divert around their airspace when we attacked Libya. So you see, it isn't just the differences over Iraq why so many Americans seem to have it in for the French.

As an asside, I have to agree with Rigil about the radical liberals being the most intolerant people there are. It actually amuses me a little when they try to categorize me and can't, but that just points out that that's what they're all about. Plus, it's why I was banned from HoT becuase that kind of intolerance goes hand in hand with GroupThink mentality.

[CoffeeCat]

^^You know me - I'm all silliness and I assume people know that so I tend to omit the smilies. I'm more silly then I am serious so usually when I am being serious I tell people.

So here's yer smilie anyway.

Yep - it's a pain in the neck debating people you don't know so I rarely engage in debates. I normally just state my opinion and let people either agree with me or flame me. I'm usually at peace just doing that and expressing my outrage against the actual people committing the atrocities.

Also, I don't think you're antisemitic for that - I think you're having a realistic reaction to what you've been reading in the news. It's certainly refreshing to hear, considering I'm around Christian Zionists all the time who are completely oblivious to it all and make excuses for the country all the time saying, "it's all God's will" and "their return to Israel was predicted in the Bible" - I'm usually the one correcting them and saying, "Yeah, and they're also the ones who give rise to the Antichrist." and they get all offended and go pout in the corner...

[Rigil Kent]

It was a rhetorical question for the sake of the irony of the verbage - don't intimate the existence of a presumed answer that isn't there.

Well - If I didn't, I'm pretty sure Rigil might have.

Given Elessar's declared leanings, I'll admit to having done exactly that. I've been assaulted too often in the past to not see that kind of response as a presumed answer. For that, I apologize.

Again, you jumped on the defensive as if you've been accused, or least felt accused by the liberal base of being an intolerant conservative.

That's exactly the point. Because I'm conservative, and because I don't support whatever the current pet liberal policy was, I've been savaged by so-called "arbiters of tolerance" and accused of things ranging from racism (ignoring the fact that my girlfriend at the time was literally African-American, having been born in Ghana) to bigotry to homophobia (since I didn't and don't support gay marriage for the reason that I don't think that "marriage" is something the damned government should have a hand it. It's a religious thing, dammit). Hence, my disdain toward those who are generally the loudest as they cry for "tolerance" while being intolerant zealots toward those that don't toe their party line.

Maybe you just don't think it's fair that conservatives are sometimes generalized as intolerant.

For me, I could honestly care less about "fairness." I take great pleasure in the fact that life isn't fair. What offends me is that in my experience, leftists are more intolerant toward someone who doesn't agree with them than any other individual, yet they have somehow managed to convince the masses of sheeple that they aren't.

I'm pretty much done with this thread because it's veered into subjects that I don't want to discuss with online "friends" as my politically incorrect opinions will likely offend (as I categorically disagree with Elessar with pretty much everything politically, I think. Except guns.)

[CX]

Guns are cool. (just saying... )

[CoffeeCat]

Yep, they sure are, CX - and they serve as a deterrent for dictatorships which is why we should protect our second amendment and go learn how to use one.