What I said should be taken as a principle, not a hard and fast rule. I apologize for not making this clear. There are other factors to consider when making this decision, and there are always extreme cases that haven’t been considered.
The cost-benifit analysis is a bit more complicated in this case, as Habitat’s decision would cause people to stop working for them. This seems like a cost that needs to be taken into account.
The applicable principle in this case would be that unjust discrimination is a bad thing. In that light, you probably should not continue working for them.
Sua, you raise an interesting question – because you didn’t ask “Should I boycott HFH”. You are asking an even stronger question – should you help them out. So, if you see tolerance as a continuum from say:
Bombing buildings -----------Donating millions of dollars
then you can definately say that “not actively speaking out against them” is very different that “donating my time to help them out”. So, if HfH did stop making houses for non-whites, I would definately stop donating time and effort, but wouldn’t necessarily speak out against them. They might still be doing a lot of good, but wouldn’t be deserving of my help.
And, so, essentially, that helps me answer the question about white supremicists vs Girl only academies. I would speak out against white supremacy, but, I wouldn’t against girl only academies. However, neither one would get my time donated. This doesn’t make me less tolarant – this just allows me to deal reasonably with the fact I’ve got limited time/resources.
Maeglin, can you give us some examples of where people should be forcibly restricted from acting on their beliefs more often?
I certainly agree that there are many beliefs that we cannot permit people to act upon; i.e. a person should be forcibly restricted from looting other people’s property, even if he believes that property is theft and all goods should be distributed equally. I just can’t think of any cases (in America society, anyway) where such restrictions should be imposed but have not been.
Sure. Anything outside of my ideological parameters. I would be a much happier person if fanatics whose views are diametrically opposed to my own were silenced for good and their ideas buried at the bottom of the ocean. I could very easily appropriate a “neutral” term like justice, fairness, progress, social order, etc. to justify my suppression of ideas that I do not like.
Open dialogue and diversity are well and good, provided that all voices fall within a philosophical spectrum at least marginally consonant with my own. In any kind of dialogue ideas and voices are going to be excluded and suppressed. I would rather arbitrate the suppression than be the poor sod who gets marginalized.
After all, some form of alienation happens in America all the time. I have simply cast off the patina of objectivity that the First Amendment seems to provide and am honest about the fact that I would love to erase ideas that I do not like. And in America, I am well within my rights to hold such a belief and act upon it as far as the law permits.
I will not tolerate pederasty, in any identifiable form in any part of my society. I will speak out against it at the very least, in any place and time. I am absolutely intolerant of pederasty. I don’t think that is a bad thing about me. I will not allow any known pederast to have unsupervised access to any child however repentant he purports to be. Ever.
Racism is intolerance. Accepting the racist attitudes of people in my society is intolerance. It is the racism that is hurting my society, not the absence of acceptance for racism. I will dispute the opinions of racists. I am intolerant of racism. I will accept the rights of people to associate with whom they wish to associate. But I will identify racism as racism without fear of being thought to be intolerant.
I will not tolerate the denigration of people for their beliefs, however repugnant those beliefs might be. But that does not change the repugnance I feel for those beliefs. Nor does it require me to accept voluntary association with those who practice beliefs I find repugnant. But I am not the judge of their worth. I am the judge of my approval, and my choices of association only. What rights I would have despite other’s condemnation, I must respect for those of whom I do not approve.
I will not accept demagoguery. I will hold to account for their words all that incite hatred with their words. Those who encourage others to usurp the rule of law have committed a violation of the law. Those who conspire to do harm out of hatred are criminals. I will defend the right of each one to speak his mind. I will hold each one responsible for the words he speaks. I will not tolerate the loss of the right to speak my mind. I will bear the responsibility for every word that I speak.
I am intolerant of changes in my society that would take these freedoms from me. I am intolerant of attitudes of those who wish to have those freedoms, but seek to escape those responsibilities.
I am unashamed of my intolerance of these things. There are intolerances in me of which I am ashamed. I seek to change them. I will make those changes myself, though, according to my own judgment.
Tris
“The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.” ~ Albert Einstein ~
Let me be sure I have this straight: you are saying people should be forcibly restricted from acting outside your ideological parameters?
But I still don’t know the answer to my question: what ideological parameters do you have that people aren’t forcibly restricted from violating already? Do you have an ideological parameter that certain African tribes should not practice genital infibulation on their children? A parameter that forbids eating meat on Sunday? An ideological parameter that children should be raised only by members of their own race? What are these parameters that should be defended by force, but are not?
Sorry for clipping your post so short, but the rest doesn’t really address what I was trying to get at. I’m sure you don’t want to be marginalized (who does?), and I understand you want people whose views are different from your own to agree with you or be silent, but that doesn’t tell me where you want more force to be used.
SuaSponte: *At one end, we have the Nazis and the KKK. At the other end, we have female-only colleges (hey, regardless of their good purpose, they are discriminatory).
At what point on the continuum do I open my mouth? Is it where I object on principle (which would include all-girl colleges), or on negative effect (which would exclude all-girl colleges)? *
An important tool for making these decisions, IMHO, is a broad contextual view of the different belief systems that make up this alleged “continuum”. It is not very useful to focus primarily on a single point of similarity between, say, all-female colleges and the KKK (i.e., they both discriminate against certain groups of people) without taking into consideration the beliefs that inspire their practices.
The KKK discriminates against blacks because it officially subscribes to the idea that whites are intrinsically superior and that blacks do not deserve legal and social equality. Women’s colleges discriminate against men because they are maintaining a heritage of providing higher education opportunities for women that were formerly denied to them because of sexist discrimination (traces of which still linger in expressions such as “all-girl colleges” and in many more significant forms). They are not discriminating because they believe that men are inferior or should not be allowed to associate with women or do not deserve opportunities for higher education. I think few of us would have a hard time figuring out which of these two guiding principles really represents “intolerance”.
Yes, but discrimination is never the same thing as intolerance, and isn’t necessarily proof of it either. Kimstu’s description of the motivations of the KKK and the all-women’s college serve as a nice example. On the one hand, we have people who are definitely intolerant discriminating (the KKK), and on the other we have possibly very tolerant people who discriminate to aid a historically disenfranchised group.
Perhaps the confusion stems from the negative connotation of the word “discrimination”. Remember, discrimination is the act of prefering some people over others. I wouldn’t hire a blind man to drive my car; that is discrimination at its most blatant, yet I don’t think anyone would fault me for it.
But I am intolerant of the KKK, and I discriminate against them by refusing to allow them to display their symbols, or other messages in areas under my control. I do so because I find their beliefs abhorrent. I ridicule individual member’s opinions when I am exposed to them, heaping scorn upon that which I feel deserves it. I will refuse my custom to any place that displays their accouterments, or promulgates their message. If I find that a businessman in my town is a member, I will refuse any association with him, even in unrelated matters. I despise the basic philosophy (if you can dignify stupidity and hatred as a philosophy) of the organization, and have contempt for anyone unwilling to be intolerant of it.
I am intolerant, I do discriminate, and I am not ashamed to do so. But I discriminate on the basis of the choices that KKK members make, not the circumstances or characteristics of the people who make those choices. I despise their self-serving hatred. I find their pathetic need to feel superior ludicrous and their ignorant misapplication of pride odious. I also feel much the same about race centered separatism of any flavor.
I will not tolerate evil. I might fail to overcome it, I might even fall into it through my own shortcomings. But tolerance of evil acts is not good. Nervously remaining silent while some ignorant twit tells nigger jokes is not tolerance; it is the spineless acceptance of bigotry as normal. Letting the same type of bigotry pass because the speaker himself is a member of a minority is the same. Black pride is racism. It may feel like it is justified to have pride in what others have tried to make you feel shame over, but the answer is not to take your turn in the bigot box. The answer is to be an honest judge of each person’s actions. “The content of their character.”
Tris
" There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it." ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero ~
You have just made the same sweeping stereotypes of the KKK that they make of minorities.
Its your right to refuse to do business with them, or avoid them. However, if you were to, for example, refuse to perform CPR (that hypotetically,you’d give any stranger) on a KKK member because he is a KKK member, then you are just as bad as you percieve them to be.
In my opinion, ideas, thoughts, and emotions are amoral. I don’t think you can call a KKK member evil unless he has actually done something wrong.
Also, theres nothing wrong with being black and proud. Nor is there a problem with white pride or any other kind of pride. It doesn’t make you racist to be proud of your roots. It makes you racist to hold one race as superior or inferior to others.
My belief is that all deserve equality, regardless of their beliefs. We shouldn’t punish those with different views anymore than they should punish others.
Why is it paradoxical to say, “I am tolerant of X. I am not tolerant of Y.” I never claimed that “I am a tolerant person,” or “I don’t think I’m intolerant.”
And let us not call other people dishonest when it’s more likely we’re experiencing a simple misunderstanding.
You seem to be using a different definition of tolerance than I am. You imply that tolerance must be universal, whereas in my post I specifically described selective or conditional tolerance. (And, can we please refrain from quoting dictionary definitions? If you wish to tell me what tolerance means, please use your own words.)
I would not say that is so much intolerance as wanting to be ignorant. The funny thing is you like the first amendment enough to talk about your beliefs. Not liking ideas is like blaming a gun for someone shooting you.
Triskadecamus by doing that you make yourself no better than a KKK member. You seem to have a need to feel superior as they do and a icon to hate as they do. But this is inconsistent with
You say you would rather judge a person by the label they would put upon themselves than their actions in the paragraph above.
IMHO you have no right to complain about discrimination if you support it. While I would not call the school intolerant it is still sexist discrimination on the basis of tradition.
To me, the closest analogy is a government granting another government a “right to exist”. Tolerance is the bare minimum.
I know people who don’t like homosexuals, but are tolerant in the true sense of the word. There is a wide range between loving your brother-man and bashing, I have had well meaning people try to change me. As I have tried to change others.
Personal anectdote: my sister became a born-again Christian a few years back. She thinks I’m going to hell because I’m bi, I think she’s wasting her life worshiping a mythological creature. We tolerate each other’s views, but don’t respect them, much as we may love each other as family.
Tolerance is merely recognising the humanity in others.
Your characterization of my position is entirely unrealistic. The KKK promulgates hate, murder, arson, and armed rebellion. Despising this, in your opinion is identical to despising Jews and Negroes. Nothing in my post said anything about refusing to save the life of a member, you added that for effect.
Joining the KKK, and promoting their ideas is indicative of the content of someone’s character. This is not a social club, or a philosophical society. Murder, arson, beatings, and the promotion of hate are not intolerant; they are criminal.
I cannot decide if the two of you are just entirely ignorant of the nature of the KKK, or are perhaps members of it.
Tris
“Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” ~ Thomas Jefferson ~
Before I came to grendel172’s definition I was already thinking along these lines. JThunder alsp has a good (and similar) point. They both point out that tolerance is given to those you disagree with. It is seeing the essential humanity in every person regardless of their beliefs.
I believe the thing to remember is that a person’s beliefs are only one small facet of who they are as a human being. This is not to say that a person’s beliefs are unimportant, it is just that when you are evaluating a person’s worth beliefs are basically irrelevant.
I have several principles that I try to adhere to in my life. I think that anyone can use these principles. The first principle is: recognize the intolerance and prejudices that you have. Accept that you have them. After all, they are only beliefs.
The second principle is: recognize that a person’s intolerance and prejuces say nothing about their intrinsic worth as a person. Always apply this principle to others before you judge them.
The third principle is: if you feel that there is something wrong with a person’s beliefs that you must dispute, dispute with them on the level of beliefs and not on the level of actions. Do not conclude or assert anything about their worth as a person.
Finally, do not isolate incidents. Someone remarked earlier about context, context is important. Any single incident or even collection of incidents will not really tell you anything important about a person’s true self.
I read a quote from Hannah Arendt about the Nazi Adolph Eichmann during his trial in Israel that made a very good point. I do not remember the exact quote, but I will try to sum it up.
She said something like: “everyone wanted Eichmann to be a monster. The fact that he was simply human was something they could not grasp. After all, if a monster committs a horendous crime, it can be said that it is because he is a monster. If a human committs a horrendous crime, how do you explain it?”
A monster who brutally kills millions is inherently simpler and less disturbing than human who does so. I am not a monster, so I could never committ such atrocites. But suppose a human committed them? I am a human. It troubles me deeply to think I might be capable of something like that.
I make no claims to know the answer to the riddle of tolerating intolerance. I dothink that defining tolerance as something you give to a person you disagree with clears up the matter a bit. I also think that my principles of tolerance are sound (barring typos).
and in many more significant forms). They are not discriminating because they believe that men are inferior or should not be allowed to associate with women or do not deserve opportunities for higher education. I think few of us would have a hard time figuring out which of these two guiding principles really represents “intolerance”.