Speaking of Intolerance...

[MineralMan]

It's a pretty simple word, really. It means not being tolerant of ideas and behaviors of which you do not approve. Here are some examples:

1. Intolerance of Women - Keeping women out of all positions of authority, subjecting them to the governance of men, denying them the right to control their own reproductive lives, and relegating them to only servile roles within your organization. That's intolerance.

2. Intolerance of Ideas - Declaring all ideas but those held by your particular group to be false and deplorable. Claiming that not believing whatever it is that you believe condemns you to an eternity of suffering. Now, that's intolerance.

3. Giving Immunity from Punishment to Your Leaders - Not allowing government authorities to punish misbehavior by members of your organization when they commit heinous acts. Protecting your own minions from prosecution and moving them to new places when they are suspected of crimes. That's intolerance of the laws of society.

4. Restricting the Personal Lives of Hierarchy Members - Forbidding your employees from living normal lives, including barring them from forming intimate relationships, families, and having offspring. That's intolerance of even those who are faithful to you.

5. Attempting to Control the Lives of Those Not in Your Group - Working to prevent people who do not profess your beliefs from living as they choose, believing as they believe, marrying who they wish, and reproducing as they see fit. That's intolerance imposed on people who do not agree to your terms of living and who do not accept your authority over them.

6. Threatening Punishment for Not Following Your Internal Rules - Attempting to coerce everyone to follow your arbitrary rules through threats of horrible consequences. That's intolerance of alternative ways of thinking.

Now, who would be intolerant in those ways? Would decent, tolerant people not condemn such intolerance? Should we pretend not to recognize such intolerance when we see it?

[SWBTATTReg]

1. For a pretty simple word, it sure has gotten a lot of mileage lately. Thanks for posting this...

Most of us recognize intolerance when we see it, it sure doesn't hurt to reexamine intolerance on a regular basis, so we can continue to spot any new intolerances spewing forth from our esteemed repugs and rump (as well as other sources of intolerances).

It seems like hate finds any little crack it can, and then attempt to propel itself through the crack, establishing a new level of hate, a new method of intolerance.

[MineralMan]

2. People in glass cathedrals...

When those who exhibit intolerance accuse others of being intolerant, it is time for a closer examination, I think.

I have grown weary of such accusations. I will turn the tables on people who make such accusations. It's easy.

[NeoGreen]

3. Don't forget the paradox...

...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

For my part I stand with Jefferson's point of view:

"...let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

To repeat: "where reason is left free to combat it."

Reason not the un-provable (i.e. 'faith').

[MineralMan]

4. Yes, exactly.

Faith never trumps reason. Many people do not understand that, I'm afraid. If the initial premise is faulty, the rest fails the test of logic. That is why religion cannot be logical. It is base on faith, not demonstrable facts.

[marylandblue]

7. Logic doesn't go far in many instances.

Many of us think democracy is better than monarchy. It seems logical. But there is no guarantee that 51% of people will always choose the best the candidate. In fact, by definition, up to 49% of people may think the other 51% per cent are nuts. See, for example, the election of 2004.

So maybe it's more of a faith that democracy is always better, rather than a proven fact.

[guillaumeb]

12. A type of, dare I say it, "civic faith"? eom

[Major Nikon]

8. Faith trumps reason all the time

The examples are all over the place from teaching fucked up creationist ideas in public schools to denying civil rights to abuse of children. So long as people cite their imaginary friends as justification for anything, reason takes a back seat.

[MineralMan]

10. It should not.

Period.

[zipplewrath]

5. You've just about defined every governmental authority in the world.

Women are treated differently, and generally they consider it inferior in almost every country on earth. Some vastly worse than others though.

There are ranges of ideas that are "tolerated" in societies. Any outside of those are in someways restricted. More so in some countries than others. Most can "ban" certain ideas from being discussed in various public contexts.

Immunity: Almost every country extends some sort of immunity, especially for "leaders" (or at least the powerful). It is more formal in some contexts than others.

Restriction of personal lives: Most societies demand that you conform to a set of "normalities" especially in intimate relationships. Polygamy, homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, etc. are variably restricted or outright banned in most countries to some extent or another.

Attempting to control those not in the group: This is the toughest one since the definition of "group" needs some work. Every country restricts what non-citizens can do. Many countries restrict what various members outside of some defined group within the citizens can do. Age, gender, ethnicity, and in some countries, military or police members have "special" privileges that others do not.

Threatening punishment: That's pretty much how most legal systems work. Most of us avoid going anywhere near the legal system because it involves a threat of "losing". Our drug war, and it's tendency to criminalize behavior that is difficult to justify being criminal is just one example.

Of course we have the benefit in this country, and western European countries of electing those that do these things. In much of the world this is not true. In this country right now there are alot of discussions about just how much the rich and powerful actually do the choosing.

You make allusions to religious organizations which in effect become "extra-governmental" authorities. Of course this exists because for a significant time, they were in the hierarchy of governmental authority. Today, it is why countries like China aren't fond of institutions like the Catholic church, because they represent challenges to their authority.

[marylandblue]

6. I find intolerance an overused word with too flexible a definition.

For example, you use "intolerance of women." But "women" is not an idea or behavior it is a class of people.
I'd call that discrimination, because mistreating people for an unchangeable characteristic is different from suppressing an idea or behavior.

[Major Nikon]

9. Discrimination is intolerance in the action stage

[marylandblue]

14. Like I said, intolerance is overused, too much shoehorned into one little word.

Covering everything from derogatory language to mass murder and no matter the reason.

[guillaumeb]

16. So the Chinese concentration camps for theists

are examples of discrimination in the action stage?

[Major Nikon]

17. For someone who obsesses over this issue, I'd expect you to be better educated

For one thing, calling them “concentration camps” is simply hyperbole intended as an appeal to emotion fallacy. For another, they aren’t limited to “theism”, nor is the purpose associated with theism.

Has a lot more to do with political intolerance which isn’t subject matter for this group despite the few dozen threads you’ve created on the subject, no doubt in another one of your lame attempts at pretending atheism is no different than theism.

[guillaumeb]

19. And do you every use hyperbolic language?

We both know the answer to that one.

Funny how, in a group where a few very frequent posters constantly talk of the intolerance of theists, when it is demonstrated that some atheists demonstrate the same intolerance, it is called diversion.

As if theists and atheists were 2 different species.

[Major Nikon]

22. "ever"

Just sayin’

[guillaumeb]

11. Who is immune from intolerance?

Asking for the victims of Chinese intolerance.

The victims who are put in concentration camps, and the victims who have spies lodged in their homes.

The victims who are punished for saying prayers.

When we see such intolerance, should we ask "what can we do?"

Should we ask "why are you posting this?"

Or should we condemn intolerance, and recognize that it is everywhere.

[MineralMan]

13. You appear to only condemn it when it suits you.

[guillaumeb]

15. And you appear to deflect when you cannot refute.

As in the obvious deflection when you ask why I am posting about China.

[Major Nikon]

18. You post about China because you are intolerant towards atheists

So let’s just be clear on that.

[guillaumeb]

20. And you post about theism because.....

well, we know why.

[Major Nikon]

21. Because I read the title of the group before I posted

YMMV

[MineralMan]

23. Is this not the Religion Group?

A place where religion is openly discussed? I mean, that's why I'm here, anyhow. I'm very interested in religion, and it's not a topic for open discussion anywhere else on DU but here. I'm pretty sure that's why everyone who posts here is here. Do you think that's incorrect?

[Cartoonist]

24. Didn't happen

The victims who are punished for saying prayers.
_

All zero of them. It'll take a concentration camp the size of a Bible to house them.

[guillaumeb]

27. But it did.

And the concentration camps, in true totalitarian fashion, are renamed re-education camps.

[marylandblue]

28. Yes we.should ask "why you are posting this?"

First because you post about China frequently in the religion group, but never in the General Discussion group, where it would be seen by more people. Second because you say we should ask "What can we do?" but you never answer that question yourself.

Third because your point seems to always be that "intolerance is everywhere," which is demonstrably false. Intolerance is generally not present in Western societies, particularly.when looking at liberal and moderate groups, such as the Democratic Party as a whole.

Fourth because the observation that "intolerance is everywhere," even if true is a trivial observation, as if you said, "atoms are everywhere."

Fifth because our condemnation of a supposed universal phenomenon is irrelevant. If it is everywhere, it is unavoidable, like death. Shall we condemn death, then?

So why do you REALLY post about this?

[guillaumeb]

29. If intolerance directed by theists is a fit subject,

so is intolerance directed at theists.

[marylandblue]

30. The OP is not about intolerance directed by theists.

So it is off topic. When someone points out that you are off topic, you often start a new thread about whatever it is you want to talk about instead. When starts a thread about some other topic, you often turn the subject to intolerance, which in turn you reduce to tribalism, which then you reduce to a universal human trait.

When someone points out you have done this, or done some other undesirable thingx you point to other people who do it too. And if at last, you run out of excuses and dodges, you admit you are human and end the conversation.

So you do just post these things to just to turn the conversation to a tautology: humans are humans.

Surely there is more to any subject than tautologies and banalities? If not, why not vote for Trump? He is intolerant like all of us, he is tribal, he is human, he might not even hate Uighurs, therefore he is no worse than any Democrat, and a perfectly fine example of human behavior.

Thereby, we have leveled all of our behaviors to our lowest common denominator, but at least we are not intolerant. Right?

[guillaumeb]

31. The post is about theists being the objects of intolerance.

So you are incorrect.

And as much as some here would prefer this group be devoted to attacking theists, that is not the purpose of the group.

There is a closed group for that and you are free to post there with no chance of argument.

[marylandblue]

35. The post does not mention theists or religion.

While it may in fact have been inspired by something you wrote on another thread, the described characteristics of intolerance apply to many situations, regardless of who the perpetrators or victims are.

So, no it's not actually "about" theists and does not attack anybody.

Personally, I often question what the purpose of this group is. Based on my observation, the purpose appears to be divert topics to other topics. Whoever successfully diverts the most in a given thread, wins. Second prize goes to whoever accuses someone else of diverting the thread the most.

My opinion.

[guillaumeb]

37. Or should we condemn intolerance, and recognize that it is everywhere?

The question?

And, given that M decide to post it in this group, it is obvious that M intended it to be directed at theists.

[marylandblue]

40. I don't think that is so obvious at all

I think he posted it here because the subject comes up a lot in this group.

I don't think we should condemn something that is everywhere. Because that would make life hopeless. And it would be boring.

And also create the illusion of moral superiority.

[guillaumeb]

32. And, speaking if starting a new thread, and ironically enough,

this one was obviously started as a response to my threads about the intolerant Chinese Government. A Government run by atheists.

[marylandblue]

33. Sorry, that's just me, a human being human.

You are intolerant of humans. I understand.

[guillaumeb]

34. If you did understand......

Is intolerance a human characteristic?

[marylandblue]

36. All characteristics are human characteristics.

I understand if you don't want to understand that. Misunderstanding is a human characteristic.

[guillaumeb]

38. Are you ever surprised to find that humans are intolerant?

Even groups of religious humans?

If so, why?

[marylandblue]

39. I'm surprised that so many people seem to think

Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2019, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)

it is both the worst thing in the world and can also include the most innocuous behaviors.

[Bretton Garcia]

25. A well written post from Mineral Man

Worthy of reposting, and wider circulation.

[MineralMan]

26. That's very kind of you to say.