Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday April 13 2014, @06:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the anyone-who-disagrees-will-be-shot dept.

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?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:26PM (#30917)

    There is no hypocrisy there or failure of logic, here.

    Outright denial - the last, desperate line of defence for the defeated.

    Your mental discomfort is due to a misunderstanding of how the language works.

    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 must be really hard on you. "Sweden defended themselves against an invading force. THOSE HYPOCRITES!!!"

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:32PM (#30927)

    > 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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:39PM (#30940)

      If only you could only apply this lesson to the word tolerance your headaches would cease.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:44PM (#30946)

        > 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

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:36PM (#30991)

          Well, you're close anyway. It isn't about opposing views, it's about opposing a destructive view.

          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.

          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.

          • Conflict 1: Friend A attacks friend B, you remain neutral.
          • Conflict 2: Friend A attacks you, you defend yourself.

          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.

          Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance

          assert ((true == (false == false)) != true)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @03:31AM (#31123)
            Strange that to make your point you applied context to the word 'neutral', but not the word 'tolerance'. Is that an oversight or was that intentional?
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @08:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @08:58AM (#31218)

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @03:26PM (#31337)

                Warmer, but you're still not giving it the love you gave the other example.