Intolerance of Intolerance

Great Debates
1

Maybe I’m just being Mr. Cranky Pants lately, but it seems that as I get older I become less tolerant of intolerance in others (and it has been pointed out to me that this has been reflecting of late in my posts here at the SDMB). But in an effort to be tolerant of others, I don’t know how far that tolerance should extend.

In the general:

[list=1][li]In order to be truly tolerant of other people’s views, is it a requirement that it include the intolerant? Is it hypocritical or justifiable to consider yourself tolerant and still intolerate the intolerant? Is it moral?[/li]
[li]To what degree is intolerance acceptable or unacceptable?[/li]- Thought only?

  • Speech? (“I think X is wrong.”)
  • Reaction? (“I wouldn’t be doing this if X hadn’t forced the issue.”)
  • Proaction? (“I will do this so that X will never happen.”)

[li]What action(s) are acceptable or unacceptable in dealing with the intolerant?[/li]- Saying/doing nothing (“being tolerant”)?

  • Speaking your mind and leaving it at that?
  • Endeavouring to change their opinions through words and/or deeds?
  • Taking steps to thwart any intolerant actions they make?
  • Proactively addressing intolerance before it occurs?[/list=1]

In the specific:

For the sake of argument, I will say that I despise Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Jerry Falwell for many, similar reasons. It is my opinion that these people have used their power and influence through politics (including legislation) and religion (including dictating social mores) to not only progress their intolerant attitudes/agendas, but it is my opinion that they have hurt countless people in the process, both directly and indirectly and to greater and lesser degrees. I find myself wishing them to pay for these deliberate actions by having the same or worse action put upon them, up to and including looking forward to the day they die. (NOTE: If push came to shove and I had the opportunity to do them any harm whatsoever I would not and would stop anyone else doing so, but there is a part of me that will indeed rejoice the day these men depart this world. If you have the overwhelming urge to hijack this thread to discuss this, don’t bother - a thread already exists for that topic.) Because these men have, IMO, purposely hurt others, I find that I cannot be tolerant of their actions, like I could be if someone simply felt the way they felt but did nothing to affect others (much as I might disagree with and/or dislike their opinions). Indeed, I have very little patience left for bigotry and prejudice, particularly if it is ongoing and deliberately ignorant or hurtful. (There are other, smaller examples of this both IRL and here on the boards as well, but I figured this particular example would suffice for this discussion.) For me, I don’t consider this hypocritical, nor do I have any problems justifying it, but the subject has been broached and I’d like to hear what people think. Am I being hypocritical? Is my justification way off base? Or am I just in a mean, cranky mood lately? Do other people get this way as they garner more life experience?

And just in case anyone wants to play semantics:

Sometimes it’s very hard to be Unitarian Universalist. :frowning:

Esprix

2

I believe that people who will not tolerate bigots are themselves bigots. Sometimes, I think people are thinking they are not tolerating an idea, when in fact they are not tolerating a person. Thus, you might dislike Fred Phelps as much as I do, but it isn’t Fred Phelps, the man, that I wouldn’t tolerate. It’s Fred Phelps, the hater.

What does this mean exactly? It means that I recognize his right to hate and even to express his hate (on his own property). But it also means that I will do whatever I can to express my revulsion of it.

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t want him to die; I want him to change.

3

You should allow them the right to express their views and exercise their rights and freedoms, and you should act in a civilized manner. That’s the extent of tolerance.

I would suggest that the question of whether or not someone else is “intolerant” or not is a complete irrelevance. If you are a gentleman you’ll be tolerant of all other human beings. People can’t be divvied up into “tolerant” and “intolerant” camps anyway - I’m sure I could catch anyone in intolerance, or make them seem tolerant in comparison with others - but in any case, you should be tolerant of everyone.

That certainly does NOT mean you can’t say how stupid they are when they say stupid and offensive things, nor does it mean that you have to allow ignorance, hatred, or idiocy to go unopposed. Tolerance doesn’t mean acquiescence to everything. To my mind it includes only two things:

  1. Allowing others freedom and liberty, and
  2. Treating everyone with a basic level of dignity. Being a gentleman, or a lady, as the case may be.

I believe it is hypocritical, yes. However, my definition of “tolerance” is limited. I tolerate Jerry Falwell by not making an attempt to restrict his freedoms, and by not assaulting him or otherwise acting like a tyrant or a jerk. I do not, however, suffer fools gladly, and I wouldn’t associate with Mr. Falwell and I’ll gladly state that many of his positions are the height of stupidity.

I don’t see how any of these actions, by definition, are intolerant, except maybe the last two, depending what you mean.

To use Jerry Falwell as an example, let’s say he campaigns for Bill 666, the Act To Make Homosexuality Illegal. If you campaign against Bill 666, you aren’t being intolerant in any way. If you go on TV and say Bill 666 is unconstitutional and morally repugnant and that Falwell is an ignoramous, I’d say you’re quite within the realm of tolerance. On the other hand, if you walk up to him and start screaming profanities at him, that’s intolerance (on a small scale.) That’s what Fred Phelps does, hardly a good example to follow. If you try to harm Falwell or campaign against his right to free speech, you’re intolerant on a big scale.

4

This speaks to The Problem of Evil. I’m with Libertarian on this one, tolerence for the person is needed but not neccesarily for the actions.

5

I hate it when someone can’t stand people who are intolerant of people who are discriminatory of the bigots who hate folks who are prejudiced against people with a narrow-minded view of others biased opinions.

A lot of people don’t like the term ‘tolerance’ as it can still imply tacit disapproval.

6

Being a software developer by trade, I call it ‘nested intolerance’.

7

(But I have to be careful; I nearly ran out of stack space with that one).

8

“I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that.”

  • Tom Lehrer, introduction to “National Brotherhood Week”

Esprix

9

OK, this depends on what you mean by “intolerance”. I don’t believe that you have the right to deprive anyone of their civil rights, no matter what kind of jerk they are. So threatening people with extrajudicial violence, or harming them, or lying about them is out of bounds.

But you are perfectly free to argue with them, you are free to convince other people they are jerks, you are free to mock them and scorn them and make fun of them.

So…protesting in front of abortion clinics is well within the range of acceptable behavior. Threatening abortion providers is not, nor is firebombing and shooting. You have a moral obligation to tolerate the protestors. But you also have a moral obligation to stop the threateners and shooters and firebombers.

We must all have a commitment to civil society. That means that we must act to preserve civil society.

But the hard part comes when we encounter people who disagree that civil society should exist, and use the rules of our civil society to shield themselves. If the world was an anarchic place (like they claim to want) people like that would simply be beaten to death for being idiots.

I hold that we have a positive obligation to leave no intellectual room for the enemies of civil society. They should be protected from violence like anyone else. But a lover of civil society does not have to give them a soapbox. That doesn’t mean that you should shout them down, but it also means that you don’t have to give them a venue. But this only applies to the enemies of the civil society, not just idiots who disagree with you.

10

At one time, a “discriminating shopper” was a good shopper – one who had a fine appreciation for real value, who could tell the difference between oquality and schlock.

IMHO Esprix’s paradox demstrates that it’s logically impossible to define “tolerance” as accepting anything and everything. Furthermore, this sort of tolerance is not an ideal to aspire to. One ought to differentiate between a jerk like Falwell and some praiseworthy person.

If one defines tolerance more weakly, e.g., as supporting freedom of speech even for those we disagree with, then the definition works. We can whole-heartedly support Falwell’s right to mouth his opinions, and still consider them idiotic.

My POV is pretty close to Lemur866’s.

11

Esprix, I am getting flashbacks from your Love the Christian, hate Christianity thread. If that was any indication of the trouble I get myself into, I’m steering clear of this one. :wink:

Ah, yeah right I’m stearing clear. :stuck_out_tongue:

I think the case of intolerance of intolerance is one of those funny “rules” which shouldn’t—but do—apply to themselves. Much like the oft muttered “Nothing is absolute,” a paradoxical statement?

Thus, I see no particluar reason that any statement should apply to itself automatically, and so there is not semantic or implicational problem, IMO, with not tolerating intolerance.

That said, I would be awful suspicious of someone who said, “I am a tolerant guy, but I just can’t stand intolerance.” My question would be: just that?

Well, Lib mentioned tolerating the man but not the message… I would disagree there and instead put a somewhat shadowy line around tolerating what one man could put forth. The examples you give in the OP are of persons using their position to espouse a mode of thought: this, in itself, regardless of the messag is a possible form of intolerance. Shouting the loudest is not much different than degrading others opinions and beliefs in other means. Thus, I feel that when you and I are in a room and disagree, we should tolerate each other (except in the bizarre scenarios involving physical violence—I think you and I are probably not the type :p). However, should one of us attempt to make our opinion bigger in an attempt to drive yours out, that itself goes against tolerance.

Much like I am pacifistic right up to the point where I am in danger or my way of life is in danger, I am tolerant right up to the point of intolerance. I think it is a reasonable place to draw a line, even if it is a little subjective.

12

You do know how to start hard topics, don’t you, Esprix?

This one has given me a lot of grief over the past couple of years.

But a precis of my thinking is something like this:

There is a distinction between the individual and his/her ideas. (Better said by others above.) It’s possible to preserve respect and even agapetic love for the individual while condemning the views he or she is currently espousing or advocating.

And it is not only acceptable but incumbent on those who seek a climate of tolerance and pluralism to combat those who would attempt, through their public stances, to eliminate such a climate. To do otherwise is not “tolerance of different views” but abdication of a moral responsibility.

To play on your example, Falwell and Robertson have the right to preach hatred (though using the name of God to do so makes them despicable in my eyes). They do not have the right to call for a political change where their views are the only views. There’s a clear distinction here in my mind.

13

my understanding of tolerance is that it is relative. we have a moral obligation to uphold the civil and moral rights of others, but those are not easily defined. in the US, that’s relatively easy–our civil rights are defined in law. but in other places of the world it is not. if there are no actual civil laws to uphold is it obligatory to defend them? is it morally wrong to deny them? these are questions which cannot always be answered in a specific context. and when one culture and belief in one part of the world is clashed against those in another, chaos ensues. such is that of the afghanistan problem. are we being tolerant of them? is our degree of tolerance even applicable towards them? in my opinion, tolerating intolerance encourages others to be intolerant, but not tolerating intolerance makes yourself intolerant. this is why tolerance is a huge grey area, it isn’t black and white. but while there are many grey areas of tolerance, there must always be a point of no return. if we are tolerant of everything, we are taken advantage of. if we are tolerant of nothing, we are taking advantage of ourselves.

14

I am really tired of people saying tolerance when they really should be saying acceptance. When (public figure of your choice) calls upon people to demonstrate tolerance towards (group of your choice) it is clear, from context, that they are calling on people to accept others, not tolerate or (more accurately) “endure” them. I agree with Lillian Hellman: tolerance is an essentially arrogant concept.

15

The random drive-by link…

Intolerance of Intolerance: Tolerant or Intolerant

Not, of course, the last word, but it seemed to be worth bringing up…

16

[sub][litany]I can do this without tangenting into politics. I can do this without tangenting into politics. I can do this without tangenting into politics.[/litany][/sub]

Let me preface this with my beliefs on equality, because I feel it is inherently relative to everything else I am going to say. Hint - if you just skip down to the big block’o’quote, I’ll answer all of Esprix’ questions, and you won’t have to read this big mess. :slight_smile:

I have two very deeply-held beliefs, and one of them is that all people are created equal. This does not mean that there is an equal outcome, simply equal opportunity. This also does not mean that all people are created identical, which will become important in a few paragraphs. All equal people have equal rights, and the only way any institution or person is justified in revoking the rights of any human being is if that human being acted to become unequal.

It is my belief that there is only one way for a person, created equal to every other person, can eschew that equality - and that is by action. Any action a person takes that denies another being of one of his or her “inalienable rights” - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - renders the person inequal, and subjects him or her to the revocation of his or her rights. Under no other circumstance can a person become inequal, and under no other circumstance can a person be revoked of his or her rights. (Yes, this means I support the death penalty for the most severe crimes, and yes, this means I do not support the illegality of most controlled substances, but that is another subject entirely and I don’t wish to hijack Esprix’ thread too badly. grins)

Now, having said that, let me reiterate that until a person has taken an action that actively denies someone else of their rights, I consider that person equal and worthy of all of the rights our government bestows upon its citisens.

Also being a former existentialist (er, I was young, the teacher was charismatic, and the Existentialist Primer had a lovely orange cover), it is another deeply-held belief that no two people view the world in the same way, that every world view - so long as any harmful elements remain in thought and not in action - is equal, and that the most grievous wrong anyone can commit upon another person is to force them to surrender to another person’s will.

Everyone forms their beliefs out of experience, and no two people will ever experience the same things in the same way and draw the same conclusions from it. Thus, there will never be two people who think precisely the same way on every range of topics; their experiences in life will have led them to their views in billions upon billions of different paths. Though these views are not identical, they are equal, and deserve equal treatment.

When it comes to opinions, thoughts, and views, there is no absolute right, nor is there an absolute wrong, because all these views are equal. If it is right to the person, then it is their right to continue to believe it is right, and it is nobody else’s right to force another view upon them. To attempt to persuade, certainly; to force, to quiet, to stifle, never.

So from an objective standpoint, even the intolerant views - so long as they are not accompanied by intolerant actions - are “equal”, and can be “right” in the viewpoint of the person possessing them.

Because we are all subjective, emotional beings, however, it is well within our rights to consider one view less valid or less worthy than another - it is just not within our rights to forcefully deprive people of holding these views. You need not accept or understand why a person thinks a race is inferior, but so long as he does not act upon this thought to discriminate against a person of that race, he must not be restrained from holding this view, or else his personal liberties are infringed.

That said, when I am faced with intolerant people, I do all that I am capable of doing to try to persuade them to open their mind to a more tolerant view, but I do not condemn them or force my beliefs upon them no matter how much they disgust me. It would be anathema to my own beliefs to do so.

First we must define tolerance. To some it is the quiet, unobjecting acceptance of all views, even those opposing your own. To me, it is simply allowing people to live life the way they desire without forcing external constraints upon them unless they actively harm another individual. This does not preclude me from speaking against their beliefs, nor from holding the opinion that their beliefs are wrong, but I must acknowledge that they have the right to their beliefs as much as I do.

To be “tolerant”, you don’t need to approve of someone spewing forth hate and actively harming others. In fact you must speak against it, and if the actions of the intolerant person are depriving others of their rights, then you must seek to bring that person to justice. I.E. if Jerry Falwell was standing beside me telling me that because I don’t believe in God I am evil and that I am the cause of all suffering and pain in the world, I, as a tolerant person, am obligated to speak against that, because his words are hateful and can harm. I cannot forcibly quiet him nor deprive him of his right to say it, I can only try to convince him that he is wrong, by showing him patience.

However, were he to begin attacking me physically because he believes I am evil, then I am no longer bound to be tolerant, and I may call for his liberties to be restrained.

It is not amoral, hypocritical, nor intolerant, to do everything in your right and power to keep hate from spreading.

Thought and speech are always free, no matter what the beliefs behind it. I will respect a man who, for example, hates women but does not speak of his hatred, and treats those he hates with politeness and tolerance. I will not respect a man who voices his hatred and makes misogynistic statements, but he has the right to make them.

I will not respect a man who acts out in a misogynist manner, who deprives women of their rights and harms them through his actions; that man must be deprived of his rights whether he acts in “reaction” to a feminist march or in “proaction” to it.

The first three are acceptable so long as you are not forcing anything upon the intolerant person. The fourth option is really hard to say - I think it depends on the situation. If I believe a misogynist is planning to head home and beat his wife, then I feel that I am obligated to make certain this does not happen, which I would do by informing the woman and helping her to a safe place wherein she could act to rid herself of the problem. (Or perhaps by trying to talk the man out of his intended violence, though if I think he’s going to hit her I’ll probably think he’s going to hit me too. nods) Since I cannot prove his intention, however, I am not justified in restraining him or taking away his liberty.

If I know he is going to beat his wife, perhaps because he has beat her before, or because he has told me so, and his intention is clearly provable then I think it is the same as if I had seen him actually beating her, and I am justified in restraining him however necessary.

If I see him beating his wife then I am also justified in restraining him.

As for number five, that is simply not possible. You cannot know the difference between a man who is angry over an argument and spewing hateful slurs against women but who intends to go home after he has cooled off and make up with her, and a man who is angry over an argument and spewing hateful slurs against women but intends to go home and beat her. Thus you cannot judge someone on their perceived intolerance, assume that they are going to act in a harmful way, and restrain them before there is any proof of harmful intent.

nods That’s what I think :slight_smile:

Yay for me, I did it without getting into politics.