Give me a break. Krokodil was quite obviously engaging in hyperbole and his examples were not intended to be taken with perfect seriousness. Unless you’re under the impression that someone actually said of Ms. Rice “She drinks the blood of infants and has flying monkeys that do her evil bidding”? The tolerance issue aside, this is a perfect example of another Doper tendency: the inclination to take anything we disagree with straight up the nose, even things that are very clearly not intended to be taken literally. Oh noes! Someone might have “lumped” me in with people who make “unfounded strident assertions” eveen though I myself use “research and citations”! Let me ruffle up all my feathers and fly up to my perch of righteous indignation!
Neither you nor your opinions are entitled to any particular degree of respect from those who disagree with you. So long as a person is treating you with the minimum civility due to one human being by another, you’ve received all you can fairly ask for. (And around here, you’ll often be lucky to even get that minimum civility.) So maybe you’d like to explain to me how taking instant offense and accusing others of being “disrespectful” is consistent with holding a “tolerant” position youself.
Bosstone, that brings to mind one of our best rules here (that the rest of the internet would do well to imitate) - attack the argument, not the poster. When someone posts an unfounded, strident assertion, there is no need to call him an ass-headed idiot; all you need to do is show where his arguments go wrong; he’ll look like an ass-headed idiot all on his own if you do that properly.
Unfortunately, the things that we are totally intolerant of on this board get attacked so viciously on their own without any attacks on the posters that people have stopped discussing them altogether. I guess one board can’t be all things to all people.
Yes, we should be more tolerant and accepting, because we put ourselves forth as more intelligent than the average person, and as intelligent people, we should be examining things and ideas and coming to intelligent conclusions about them, rather than gut reactions or the common default of believing what your parents believed.
I sat down with myself a couple years ago and had a serious thinking session about this when I realized that I consider myself a very tolerant person, but there are some things I’m very intolerant of. I decided that some things are just plain wrong, and it is a good thing to be intolerant of bad things.
Since when did intelligence equate to tolerance? IMO, tolerance is more a reflection of emotional maturity and wisdom, not intelligence. In my experience, highly intelligent people are less tolerant of others–less patient, less compassionate and less understanding.
I don’t agree that there is a burden of tolerance put upon those who are more intelligent. Should there be that burden? I am not sure–but I lean towards no. Why are the more mentally able set to a higher standard? Tolerance has little to do with math smarts or high vocabulary. It’s more a manners and ethics question–anyone can come to understand the need to for the Golden Rule.
The bit about my head hurting was facetious. I have my buttons, as does anyone. Problem is, we all have different buttons.
So, to be truly tolerant of idiocy, I must act like an idiot. I’ll pass.
I don’t particularly want to be tolerant of evil, now that I think of it. And just being silent about the evil that others do isn’t tolerant, it’s evil.
I know that sometimes my own opinions are in error, and my attitudes based on my own unperceived prejudices. But, I don’t want you to have my attitudes. That is tolerance. My behavior has to fall within certain levels of accepted civilized expectations. So does yours. I don’t expect you to think all of those expectations are the best possible reflections of the best possible society. But if you want to act differently, you have to make a society of your own to do it in. If I want to, I have to do the same.
The right to speak does not imply the obligation to listen. Speak in a manner that deserves derision, and you should get derision. Your attitudes should be applauded if they are worthy of admiration, and you should be laughed at if your attitudes and actions deserve contempt. It’s a popularity thing. Deviate too much, and the normal monkeys will rip you to shreds. Being civilized means limiting the ripping to words.
I don’t think I was placing gays on a pedestal by not enjoying the characterization of them as total whores. That stereotype, like all exaggerated, pejorative stereotypes, is harmful and all too common. Doesn’t mean some gay men aren’t promiscuous and can’t be trusted… but that’s sort of a non-statement as it can be true of any group of people. I was going to drop this, but apparently other people don’t want to.
That depends. Do you think that heterosexual men are generally “whores”? By which I assume we both mean “will fuck people who they are remotely attracted to and who also say ‘yes’”.
Either side can argue intelligently and either side can argue ignorantly. I did not say Global warming was proven because Cecil wrote an article on it. I simple said the arguments for Global Warming and suggestions for solutions have been argued intelligently and should not be dismissed as simply saying all SUV’s are bad. To equal his disdain, I would have to say something like “All Global Warming Deniers obviously are in the pay of Exxon.”
Would that not be a rather stupid statement, even as an expression of hyperbole?
It sure seems like a significant amount of this argument comes down to an interesting question: are there points of view that simply do not deserve tolerance?
Some folks think that any anti-gay legislation attacks them as lesser human beings. Some folks think that religion is an objectively untrue bunch of claptrap that reflects negatively on a believer’s intelligence. Thus comes a lot of what tomdebb mentioned.
Thank you. It takes me bloody ages sum up my views both succinctly, comprehensively and without being overly provocative - that’s why I usually stay out of Great Debates; it’s too time-consuming.
In the last few weeks I’ve gotten involved in arguments concerning feminism (I believe the idea of “feminism” is unneeded now that everything is practically as equal as it can get) and whether or not a magazine ad could be considered racist (I saw the “correct meaning” of the ad and was questioning why, once the context was known, people were still howling about the wrongness of the ad’s very existence).
In both of those threads I was supported by a few people and shouted down by a few people.
The difference is is that those who disagreed with me felt the need to shout me down, belittle my point (and accuse me of not living in the real world) and generally acted like bufoons.
But there were the same number of people on each side.
So I’d say the Dope is pretty tolerant, but the people who have no tolerance for anything you might say will be a lot more angry and stupid about it than those who agree with you.
