SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It has been a little while now that this fledgling community has been around and it remains one of my favorite stories about communities. A splinter of a much larger community took it upon themselves to challenge the rest and make a move to a new home. Shedding the shackles that were being placed on them was a bold move, but one that has been fantastic.
The community here is great, but here is my question. Overall, we are amazingly tolerant of others, of the choices they make, and of their beliefs. I would then be curious, if we are such a tolerant group, how do we address intolerance in our ranks? I recently came across what I can only say filled me with pity and sadness. I find it saddening that in this day and age, and especially in this group, there are still such hate-filled people.
But this poses a question: how does a group that is tolerant deal with intolerance within it's ranks? Does our acceptance of others extend to accepting someone that has thoughts and beliefs which are far from the norm within this community, or is there a limit placed on how far from our own values a member of the community may be?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:02PM
Congratulations on failing English, logic and reason in a single, self-defeating sentence! Perhaps we should "boot" you out?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:19PM
Actually, if you really did take tolerance to that extreme, it'd be self-defeating to the point of non-existence. There would be no point in defining it. This is why the original statement is true. People like you who are trying to cling to that label do so only to save face.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:50PM
This is an age-old debate all the way back to Kant and his immorality of morality.
No, "people like me" suffer acute mental discomfort as a result of hypocritical statements and stupid non-sequiturs. You could say I am intolerant!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:07PM
> No, "people like me" suffer acute mental discomfort as a result of hypocritical statements and stupid non-sequiturs.
There is no hypocrisy there or failure of logic, here. Your mental discomfort is due to a misunderstanding of how the language works. The word neutral must be really hard on you. "Sweden defended themselves against an invading force. THOSE HYPOCRITES!!!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:26PM
Outright denial - the last, desperate line of defence for the defeated.
Yes I fail semantic gymnastics and the sophistry of those who would claim to be a "a little bit pregnant". People who fail to form cohesive arguments and instead attempt to distort the meaning of words. Politicians, lawyers, you...
The word neutral in that context means that they did not take sides in another conflict. Again, it is you who appears confused about the meaning of the word.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:32PM
> Outright denial - the last, desperate line of defence for the defeated. ... Politicians, lawyers, you...
But an attempt to hurt my ego, that's not desperate at all. Mmm hm.
> The word neutral in that context means that they did not take sides in another conflict.
If only you could only apply this lesson to the word tolerance your headaches would cease.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:39PM
Yes, then I too could claim to be tolerant whilst harbouring contemptuous intolerance for anybody with the audacity to hold views in opposition to my own.
Back to your example, being politically neutral in a dispute between 3rd parties has no implication for defending yourself against direct attack. What do you fail to understand?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:44PM
> Yes, then I too could claim to be tolerant whilst harbouring contemptuous intolerance for anybody with the audacity to hold views in opposition to my own.
Well, you're close anyway. It isn't about opposing views, it's about opposing a destructive view.
> Back to your example, being politically neutral in a dispute between 3rd parties has no implication for defending yourself against direct attack.
You see, you do understand the concept of using the right words in the right context to paint the correct picture. You just can't apply it to the word tolerance, and it's causing you physical pain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:36PM
No. Demanding tolerance from others is hypocritical because at that moment it becomes intolerance. This is exactly the same as imposing morality on others being immoral and is something we've understood for centuries.
It does not follow that conflict 2 has any bearing on your neutrality in regard to conflict 1. Now let's revisit the comment I initially replied to.
This is entirely different than your neutrality example. It is an outright fallacy and deserved exposing as such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @03:31AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @08:58AM
You can't claim tolerance whilst being intolerant of anothers views and asking for them to be banned from the site. That is the context, is it not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @03:26PM
Warmer, but you're still not giving it the love you gave the other example.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aighearach on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:41PM
Coward, in addition to failing English, Logic, and Reason with your awful false accusation, you also failed Courage.
Hint: the most simplistic possible reading of "inclusive" without considering the net effects of a decision is not going to provide a complete understanding of the word, nor is it going to provide you with the understanding that would be needed in order to apply critical thinking.
Example: If you include a nuclear bomb in the buffet menu, timed to explode, will the result be a more inclusive menu, or a less inclusive menu? But... but... but... it has the word "include!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:33PM
It must be a more inclusive menu as nobody in the vicinity would escape the detonation. This by virtue of what the word inclusive means: the menu includes a bomb and all diners are catered for in the blast.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 14 2014, @02:18AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 14 2014, @04:41PM
Depends how quickly someone eats the bomb, I suppose.
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"