# Argue against "If you won't tolerate my intolerance, you're a hypocrite." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350 "2014-02-26T20:14:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/21 "2014-02-27T01:27:02Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Providing a service to a couple in no way is a stamp of approval. A baker might think the age different between a couple in an OSM marriage is too great; how many are going to refuse service on that basis? A devout Catholic might think an interfaith marriage is bad; should he refuse service? How about a mixed race marriage? I don’t know what “OSM” means – but the law does permit a baker to refuse service to a marrying couple because he thinks the age difference is too great. And if that actually happened, I doubt there would be much condemnation of it. A Missouri baker refuses to provide a wedding cake to a fifteen year old girl who is marrying, with parental permission, a sixty-five year old man, calling it “disgusting.” A wedding planner declines to accept the couple as clients, for the same reason. Yet the marriage is unquestionably legal. Are you prepared to argue that there would be some sort of groundswell of public condemnation against the baker? There certainly wouldn’t be any legal recourse. Should we, as a society, tell the baker and the planner that they must do the work? In the case of an interracial couple, we have already answered that question: yes. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/22 "2014-02-27T02:00:22Z")
**Bricker** , from the context, I’m pretty sure it stands for **O** pposite **S** ex **M** arriage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/23 "2014-02-27T02:08:55Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > **Bricker** , from the context, I’m pretty sure it stands for **O** pposite **S** ex **M** arriage. :smack: I’m not smart, but I can lift heavy things at least. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/24 "2014-02-27T02:16:36Z")
The implied equivalency is that there’s something wrong about being black or gay or Jewish or whatever. So the bigot argues, “If I have to tolerate (blacks/gays/Jews/whatever) then you have to tolerate bigots.” No, it doesn’t work like that. It’s not a reciprocal trade of equal terms. We’re saying that people who are black or gay or Jewish or whatever should be tolerated because there’s nothing wrong with them. But there is something wrong with bigots so they are not entitled to the same toleration. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/25 "2014-02-27T02:40:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > :smack: > > I’m not smart, but I can lift heavy things at least. Ooh! You should go post in **karol** ’s [“Rupture”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=716594) thread, here in GD! ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/26 "2014-02-27T03:26:28Z")
If I knew someone who constantly ragged on gays and I told them to knock it off, and they came back at me with the retort in the OP, my response would be: “I don’t tolerate meanness and hatefulness. Being gay is neither mean or hateful, so that’s why I can tolerate homosexuality but not you.” It’s a person’s right to go outside wearing an ugly dress. It’s also someone else’s right to loudly express an unfavorable opinion about that dress. But that dress is neither rude or offensive. It’s just a dress. On the other hand, opinions can be rude. They can hurt feelings. So it’s not hypocritical to think people should be free to wear whatever they want, but think that people should keep their nasty opinions to themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steely_Dan_Fan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/27 "2014-02-27T04:22:22Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Twenty years ago, I would have accepted the argument that gays just wanted tolerance, to be left alone to live their own lives as they saw fit. > > Today? It’s increasingly evident that gays and their allies will never be content with mere tolerance. As blogger Mark Shea puts it, “Tolerance is NOT enough! You. Must. Approve!” Indeed. You must. Anything else is oppressive. And you don’t have the right to oppress people. How is this difficult? > [@](#): > > Today, it’s Christians who are increasingly saying “We just want to be left alone.” It’s not Christians who have a problem with this, because Christianity is LGBTQ-positive. You’d know this if you were a Christian yourself (as I am). ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/28 "2014-02-27T04:39:46Z")
The simple answer to the OP is that it is not “intolerance” that I won’t tolerate. You are free to be as close minded, stupid, ignorant and wrong as you like. And so long as you keep your thoughts to yourself that is your problem. What I won’t tolerate is the bullying, mistreatment, exclusion or marginalisation of an individual. This is different to intolerance. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/29 "2014-02-27T04:58:55Z")
Intolerance is tolerated, at least in the United States. You can hold Klan rallies and protest funerals with “GOD HATES FAGS!” posters and you won’t be arrested. Intolerance isn’t tolerated in some countries though, like Germany. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/30 "2014-02-27T05:10:43Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Twenty years ago, I would have accepted the argument that gays just wanted tolerance, to be left alone to live their own lives as they saw fit. Being left alone to live my own life as I see fit includes being accepted as a full member of society, to buy cakes where everyone else buys cakes. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/31 "2014-02-27T05:14:05Z")
Nobody has the right to “tolerate” or “not tolerate” anybody. It isn’t up to you. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/32 "2014-02-27T05:24:23Z")
I am kind of surprised that there are people who heard pleas for tolerance and honestly thought that segregated bakeries were included in that. It reminds me a little of the view that hell is an expression of God’s love. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/33 "2014-02-27T05:49:54Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > I am kind of surprised that there are people who heard pleas for tolerance and honestly thought that segregated bakeries were included in that. Of course it is; the homophobes want their form of segregation to be tolerated. They define “oppression” as someone preventing them from harming others. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/34 "2014-02-27T06:20:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know what “OSM” means – but the law does permit a baker to refuse service to a marrying couple because he thinks the age difference is too great. > > And if that actually happened, I doubt there would be much condemnation of it. A Missouri baker refuses to provide a wedding cake to a fifteen year old girl who is marrying, with parental permission, a sixty-five year old man, calling it “disgusting.” A wedding planner declines to accept the couple as clients, for the same reason. Yet the marriage is unquestionably legal. > > Are you prepared to argue that there would be some sort of groundswell of public condemnation against the baker? There certainly wouldn’t be any legal recourse. Should we, as a society, tell the baker and the planner that they must do the work? > > In the case of an interracial couple, we have already answered that question: yes. My question was not about the legality of the situation, it was about whether serving any of these people meant there was approval of them. The baker might have been disgusted at that marriage - that is his right - but I suspect that even he would never think that baking the cake would have meant approving it. It is clear that gays are not protected in Arizona already. If the baker refused to serve those with a ten year age difference - maybe more in line with the number of SSMs in states allowing them, then there might be a groundswell of opposition. Even if he made up some kind of religious objection to it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/35 "2014-02-27T06:24:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course it is; the homophobes want their form of segregation to be tolerated. They define “oppression” as someone preventing them from harming others. As we heard in the Prop 8 debate, the next step beyond not serving those whose existence is offensive is calling same sex couples showing affection in public an attack upon their type of Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/36 "2014-02-27T06:41:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know what “OSM” means – but the law does permit a baker to refuse service to a marrying couple because he thinks the age difference is too great. > > And if that actually happened, I doubt there would be much condemnation of it. A Missouri baker refuses to provide a wedding cake to a fifteen year old girl who is marrying, with parental permission, a sixty-five year old man, calling it “disgusting.” A wedding planner declines to accept the couple as clients, for the same reason. Yet the marriage is unquestionably legal. > > Are you prepared to argue that there would be some sort of groundswell of public condemnation against the baker? There certainly wouldn’t be any legal recourse. Should we, as a society, tell the baker and the planner that they must do the work? > > In the case of an interracial couple, we have already answered that question: yes. I think this issue has been raised before: you can be too focused on the law and you lose sight of the bigger picture. The moral opinions of individuals and societies change. And the law follows this. The law doesn’t create morality; morality creates the law. If the law defined morality, then there would never be any basis for changing the law. We enact and repeal laws because we recognize that our laws are not always in accord with our morality. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/37 "2014-02-27T06:46:24Z")
del; dupe ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/38 "2014-02-27T07:34:21Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I think there’s a name for the fallacy in the arguments above, I just don’t know it offhand. Person A says Person B is being C, Person B says that Person A is being C more then they are. It’s like a deflection attack or something. Person B doesn’t admit being C, just declares Person A is being C as well. That would be [Tu quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque). > [@Mangetout](#): > > Or to expand on that example, it plays bait and switch with the definition of ‘tolerant’ “Is it a virtue to tolerate intolerance?” That’s a bait and switch, as the words are not symmetric opposites. Intolerance typically applies to stances on another race, creed, gender, sexual preference, etc. Left outside of such human characteristics are being a crook, asshole, dick, difficult individual or any number of vices. No, you don’t have to tolerate vices, especially if they are in your face. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/39 "2014-02-27T12:45:50Z")
The simplest answer is “Your intolerance IS tolerated. It’s not illegal to be a dickhead. Ergo, your bigotry is tolerated. Be as intolerant as you please. Just remember that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You have a right to your opinion, but I have a right to an opinion about your opinion, and my opinion of your opinion is that your opinion on gays/women/other races/religions etc… makes you a dickhead, and I will happily exercise my right to tell you that.” What these people really want isn’t tolerance but deference. Fuck 'em. Of course, some may point to anti-discrimination laws as evidence that their bigotry isn’t tolerated, but all you have to do is point out that those same laws protect them as well, so no-one is getting special treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350/40 "2014-02-27T13:54:27Z")
I think “Bite me” is a concise and wholly adequate response. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argue-against-if-you-wont-tolerate-my-intolerance-youre-a-hypocrite/682350.md?page=3)