Oh and what if the person being intolerant of intolerance realises their behaviour and is ok with themselves being a hypocrite?

Really, it is about what is acceptable to ourselves and I think that a person who deals with what they intolerate in themselves, when faced with a person who intolerates others, will be less likely to have a reaction to the intolerance in others, than the person who does not deal with their own intolerance within themselves.

I am not intolerant of WellBeyond.

IceNine said:

I am intolerant of your tolerance towards me...

Aerogram said:

Goes a little deeper than simply one being more blunt...one is said as an expression of a viewpoint, with no other motive behind it...the other is most definitely accompanied with a motive, an intent to emotionally "attack"...we can't say that because we were "hurt" by something someone said, that it automatically means they meant to hurt us.

No other motives behind it? I'm sorry but this is a difference in packaging, and that's it. The most you can say is that no offensive epithet is used. But just because hatred is coated in civility doesn't make it less prejudiced.





The "behavior" is the act of expelling air thru your throat in order to make sounds, nothing more...there is no behavior accompanied with the words themselves...in other words, you're not acting on the views you're expressing. There's where the difference is...

Communication is not only a behavior, it is the most most complex. There's a terminology problem here. I don't believe that "intolerance" is manifested only in hostile eptithets and acts. In fact, intolerance can wear a smiling face and speak with the most "neutral" words. Propagandists have long known that the more sophisticated their audience, the less crude words and characterization will work. And here you are, seemingly saying that as long as there's no bad epithets, it's simply a view... To me, that's simply too simple.


Nope...people's behaviors (in this case, anyway) are only influenced by internal factors...how people react to what they hear is not caused by what they hear...not to mention that you still need to consider into the equation if there's motive behind the words being spoken: if the words are indeed being said to incite, then it's now an action...if it's being said simply to voice an opinion, it's not...it's the difference between being asked what your views on race relations are during an interview, and renting out a hall to give a speech on the subject...

I don't disagree that the actions of people are their own, and not those of whoever influenced their opinion. That does not mean that those who communicate their views play no part in a person's personal decision. Whether they are inciting from the top of their soapbox or spouting bigotry at the dinner table matter of factly in front of family and guests, people remain responsible for what they say, especially when they are in leadership positions and their words are influential even when they don't mean them to incite. It's true for parents in front of their kids, and it's true of a friend spouting patently racist views to another regularly in the car or during lunch daily. The friend is not changed instantly by these comments, but if you have ever worked in a workplace where homophobia is rampant because of a few assholes and the desire of others to be "one of the guys", you know what I mean.

In the end, the definition of intolerance refers to both behavior and opinion. Just holding views that are racist, for instance, is intolerant. It's not "active" intolerance, but it's still intolerance. And coating this intolerance in more neutral terms is still the manifestation of intolerance. That's why the people who will say "blacks are not very intelligent and they are generally lazy and oversexed" will be caught saying the N word sooner or later,




And had no action whatsoever followed, then what??...Would there still be a valid reason for fearing Hitler's views??...That's the rub behind intolerance, the fear that mere views are dangerous, and must be stopped, whether they are connected to actions or not...if the thinking goes "prejudice and racist views are, in and of themselves, dangerous", then yep, we're intolerant...

Obviously, if Hitler had failed in his efforts to influence public opinion, there would have been no "action". But he did succeed... by making those views widely heard, convincing the uneducated masses that there was some science to back them up and making them acceptable through the power of propaganda. If Hitler's influence had been limited to a few zealots, he obviously would not represent a significant thread. There are little Wanna-be-Hitlers right now on a couple of web sites, and you don't see me organizing a rally to shut these site down, though I certainly understand if jewish organizations want to do exactly that. However, when a figure as evil as Hitler started being a significant force and convinced enough people to take part in his party, then people had a very clear reason to oppose its virulent views because they were bringing him much closer to power and the formation of a repressive regime.



Again, you say opposed nazism...nazism is an action, a behavior, a movement with specific goals...it's not simply an opinion...so you'd be right in saying that wouldn't lable it as intolerant, because the opposition wouldn't be against mere opinion.


Again, you support what I say..it's against behavior...anyone who feels we need to be intolerant towards people's opinions only damn sure does fall under the definition of intolerant...


I think you're missing the point, Aero, in favor of trying to champion the good behind being intolerant towards certain things...I suppose you probably feel it's unfair to lable something you see as a good with such a negative lable...

A: You're not tolerant if you're "unwilling to tolerate differences of opinions"...I'd say if you're unwilling to tolerate differences of opinions concerning race, you fall under this definition of "not tolerant"...

And gladly so, but under part C of the definition. I oppose these people because they are intolerant in the first place, not because they are white, straight, baptist, abled, young, etc. I have nothing against them except that they want to restrict the rights of others based on certain characteristics, denying individuality by making gross generalizations that serve to rationalize their bigotry.

B: You're not tolerant if you "oppose the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself"...I'd say that if you're in favor of banning anyone from anything due solely to their opinions on racial matters differs greatly from your own, then you'd fall under this definition of "not tolerant" as well...

The crucial distinction is that I oppose those people because they, in the first place, are intolerant of differences such as race, sexual orientation, etc. I am intolerant of bigotry whether it comes from gays, whites, blacks, catholics, atheists, muslims, etc... I have a pluralistic, inclusive philosophy, but I draw the line of tolerance at societal and religions intolerance itself, at people who think others should be treated differently and a certain group have supremacy.





As for C, it lists two--once again, kids--two behaviors, interruptions and crime...neither of those two things are opinions or views..

A dictionary isn't a complete record of usage. You will notice that a refers to opinions, and you can certainly use the C meaning toward an opinion. For instance, McArthy was clearly intolerant of "coomunist views". .

There's a scene from the old movie "Twilight Zone", with
Vic Morrow...he's a bigoted, hateful racist, and he's in a bar talking to some friends or coworkers, whatever...some black guys sit down at a nearby table, and you can see that Vic is obviously repulsed...so Vic starts speaking in a louder tone of voice, expressing his views about blacks and the races and what-not, using insulting and vulgar wording to express his opinions...and doing so in a deliberately loud way for the sole purpose of making sure the blacks at the nearby table heard his racist remarks...

Well, one of the black guys figures he's had enough...gets up, walks over to the table...leans down, and tells one of Vic's friends "Listen...I don't care if your friend is racist or not...just tell him to keep it down and keep it to himself."...

That right there, to me, is the line between tolerance and intolerance...that "black guy" saw the thin line between the two and respected it...he basically said, if he overhears someone saying this shit, he'll tolerated it and ignore it...it's only an opinion, afterall...but...if it goes from mere opinion to an act of purposeful attempts to belittle and injure another, it no longer is contained to opinion only, and is deserving of being responded to...

Which is my point.

Nah... that scene simply shows the progression that takes place for most of us when we hear something offensive. We're not for the most part virulently intolerant the second we hear something we don't like. In situation like this, at the beginning we'll often say to our friends "I can't STAND people who talk like that!", meaning we have low tolerance or are not willing to tolerate this talk right now or much longer, taking into account practical considerations.



...
[This message was edited Thu May 29 22:04:56 PDT 2003 by wellbeyond]

One last thing before I go to bed (or attempt to, anyway...lol)...

You said: "...as soon as you express (your opinions), they become in effect an action, a behavior."...and that the person who says "People in wheelchairs don't contribute much to society" and the person who says "You're nothing but a worthless cripple!!" are, in effect, both doing the same thing...so if we can react towards one without being intolerant, we can react towards both without being intolerant.

Think about this, tho...when we are "intolerant" towards someone who says people in wheelchairs are of little value in society, what is the behavior we're being intolerant towards?...The only behavior they're engaging in is the expression of personal opinion. So if we're intolerant towards this person, we're saying we're intolerant towards the act of expressing opinions. This, to me, is intolerance defined...We're not being intolerant towards the opinion itself, since we're saying that if they had kept the opinion to themselves, we'd be fine with that...

However, when we are "intolerant" towards someone who tells another person that they're a worthless cripple, what is the behavior we're being intolerant towards?...This person is not only engaging in the expression of personal opinion...they are also engaging in the act of verbal abuse...they are using their words as weapons, not just to illuminate a viewpoint...So if we're intolerant towards this person, we're saying we're intolerant towards the act of verbal abuse. This, to me, is not intolerance (not the type this thread speaks of anyway)...We're not being intolerant towards the expression of the opinion, or of the opinion itself...we're being intolerant towards abuse..

wellbeyond said:

I am intolerant of your intolerance of my tolerance towards you!

IceNine said:

This is intolerable.

Aerogram said:

I am intolerant of your saying that my intolerance of WellBeyond's intolerance of my tolerance towards him is intolerable!

IceNine said:

In conclusion, intolerance of intolerance should be distinguished from classic intolerance borne out of simple xenophobia. One is meant to preserve pluralism, the other is meant to arbitrarily exclude individuals over group characteristics people can't change or find extremely injurious to change, such as the color of their skin, their secual orientation, their faith, etc.

By confusing all parts of the definition, we can go on and on about how so and so is intolerant of an intolerance of an intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance.
[This message was edited Fri May 30 11:55:43 PDT 2003 by Aerogram]

Aerogram said:

Truly, your reasoning mirrors my own. And it's why I am a social worker--always ready to 'fight the power' and/or be the person who points out that the emperor is wearing no clothes, lol...

AnotherLoverToo said:

the irony continues...

AnotherLoverToo said:

the irony continues...

AaronSuperior said:

So tell me why you find my comment ironic, Aaron, I'd be happy to hear it. Tell me what you think you know

So tell me why you find my comment ironic, Aaron, I'd be happy to hear it. Tell me what you think you know

you work for the power, you draw your paycheck from the power, yet you fight the power?

as for the emperor having no clothes, you work in a field within a system that's had no clothes for decades.

AaronSuperior said:

Ummm--exactly whom do you think I work for?

AnotherLoverToo said:

don't know, don't care.

but can we play 20 questions? maybe i can figure it out. then i'll tell you what i think of them.


first question: do you work with child cases?

AaronSuperior said:

I'll pass on that, Aaron, and let this thread continue its original purpose. You don't know or care, and that's cool, so why bother?

AnotherLoverToo said:

Had you not blocked me from sending you a return orgnote (while I was in the middle of typing it), you would have found out. But... eh. Why bother? Whatever this is, it would have been resolved. But now, it's in limbo, ready to rear it's head any time we may happen to cross paths here.

AaronSuperior said:

I blocked you because you wrote that you were uninterested in receiving anymore orgnotes from me, with the intention of clearing things up, and that you were going to block me. I'm happy to unblock you, if you wish to reply.

Had you not blocked me from sending you a return orgnote (while I was in the middle of typing it), you would have found out. But... eh. Why bother? Whatever this is, it would have been resolved. But now, it's in limbo, ready to rear it's head any time we may happen to cross paths here.

I blocked you because you wrote that you were uninterested in receiving anymore orgnotes from me, with the intention of clearing things up, and that you were going to block me. I'm happy to unblock you, if you wish to reply.

I gave you fair warning, though. I did not block you while you were writing. I was responding to the orgnote that got to the real heart of the matter.

Don't unblock me. There's no need now. Again, why bother? Your mistake. Again, I don't care. I was offering an answer, but you didn't want it.

Don't ask again "why?" because before it was just mild irritation, that I was writing to explain. Now I'm just pissed off.
[This message was edited Fri May 30 15:54:49 PDT 2003 by AaronSuperior]

Way to illustrate the basics of tolerance, you two. ;It reads like a dramatization.
[This message was edited Fri May 30 16:19:48 PDT 2003 by Aerogram]

AaronSuperior said:

As far as I knew, and per your request, you and I were not going to be communicating privately any longer. I had no idea you were writing back to me, since you'd stated you'd block me, so I blocked you as well.

No anger here, Aaron, and I won't ask "why" either. As far as I'm concerned, we're on okay terms. I've unblocked you, please feel free to write if you like. If not, that's cool too!

Way to illustrate the basics of tolerance, you two. ;It reads like a dramatization.
[This message was edited Fri May 30 16:19:48 PDT 2003 by Aerogram]

AaronSuperior said:

As far as I knew, and per your request, you and I were not going to be communicating privately any longer. I had no idea you were writing back to me, since you'd stated you'd block me, so I blocked you as well.

No anger here, Aaron, and I won't ask "why" either. As far as I'm concerned, we're on okay terms. I've unblocked you, please feel free to write if you like. If not, that's cool too!

Why?