Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by Azuma Hazuki
Tolerance Is Not A Moral Precept.

This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.

Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.

This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.

tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment 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: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Friday April 28, @04:02PM

    by pTamok (3042) on Friday April 28, @04:02PM (#1303656)

    It might need spelling out.

    1) Tolerance is good. We should be infinitely tolerant. We should be tolerant of people that espouse irrational beliefs that support the harming the well-being and health of others. If you disagree, just be tolerant.
    2) "Well, people who put milk in coffee should be killed. It is completely unacceptable. In fact, death is too good for them, they should be tortured before death!"
    3) That's plain mad, No way will I tolerate that. That's insane.
    4) Maybe there is a line for tolerance after all? Maybe where it is drawn is up for discussion?
    5) But that's a stupid example. Clearly no-one thinks that or tries to carry it out.
    6) How do we tell the difference between stupid examples and not-stupid examples? Opinions might differ. Is there a 'litmus test' that shows a clear difference between stupid and not-stupid?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2