# Tolerance should be good enough. I hate the whole acceptance/validation



## Noir drag freak (Apr 4, 2022)

One of things that bugs the living shit out of me about this generation is the need to be valid. My autistic brain can’t comprehend the saying “You are accepted and you’re valid”. Like why do I need you to be validated? Why do I even need to feel valid? Secondly, that is something a cult leader would say in order for you to join their cult. 

One of my problem with the LGBT and queer community is the whole need for validation.  Though, I feel like non-whites in the West have the same mentality. Like they really want to be around white people like that. It’s gotten to the point that some asian males wanted to support a pornstar because “Representations matters”.

Why isn’t tolerance good enough?


----------



## Lurker (Apr 4, 2022)

many years ago i had a friend who was gay, and funnily enough he said something kinda along the lines you did, and i agreed with it then, and i still agree with it now.

acceptance and validation is nice and gives people fuzzywuzzies, but you can't force people to accept or validate others, no matter how much you try. 

tolerance _is_ good enough. for example, i reluctantly tolerate trannies, but i sure as shit don't accept them nor am i going to validate their delusions. i'm not going to go out of my way if i see a tranny on the street to shittalk them or beat the shit out of them, but i'm also not going out of my way to invite them to my home or to any of my outings.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Apr 4, 2022)

It's kinda the point, the goal is to have you debase yourself on the tranny alter so they'll feel superior.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 4, 2022)

Because human societies always have standards that are adhered to, and there cannot be an infinite amount of standards. Thus, people will always vie for control of those standards and try to make them reflect their values.


----------



## remiem (Apr 4, 2022)

Because they're addicted to the validation and control via the social capitol and personal value it gives them. That validation, that power,  is like a drug to a drug addict. If you just ignore or tolerate them it's like walking up to a junkie and taking their drugs, instant aggressive chimp out. They NEED you to validate because otherwise you destroy the high they get from forcing people to accept them.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Apr 4, 2022)

Because you reject the fullness of truth as revealed by our MA'AAAM and savior Christine Chandler PBUH

Clearly you are an enemy of Goddess and must ensure the Goddess' purifying fire for any hope of salvation. Truly, persecuting the unbelievers is an act of faith.

As St Thomas Aquinas said, it is the duty of the faithful to cut off and destroy a diseased branch to prevent it infecting the tree. So too must society be purged of those who reject "Da TROONF"


----------



## Kermit Jizz (Apr 4, 2022)

Tolerance was too far. As soon as you capitulate at all you've lost.


----------



## Ser Prize (Apr 4, 2022)

We tried tolerance. They just kept demanding more.


----------



## Iron Jaguar (Apr 4, 2022)

Tolerance is not a virtue, it is a Trojan Horse by which people who hate you and your culture can enter and destroy it.
As for acceptance/validation: evil wants you to willingly embrace it. It's not enough to allow the perverts and monsters to live in your society - you must also agree with what they do, and teach your children that it is good and wonderful.


----------



## Just A Butt (Apr 4, 2022)

goddamn i wish i could rate this whole thread late as fuck


----------



## Big Scumfuck (Apr 4, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> We tried tolerance. They just kept demanding more.





Iron Jaguar said:


> Tolerance is not a virtue, it is a Trojan Horse by which people who hate you and your culture can enter and destroy it.
> As for acceptance/validation: evil wants you to willingly embrace it. It's not enough to allow the perverts and monsters to live in your society - you must also agree with what they do, and teach your children that it is good and wonderful.


The fact you both unironically believe this is pretty cringe. I see you two chucklefucks being negative in every single thread like this and being some of the main causes of derailment into sperging.

Fix yourselves, you are part of the problem, get of the internet for a while, touch some grass.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 4, 2022)

Big Scumfuck said:


> The fact you both unironically believe this is pretty cringe. I see you two chucklefucks being negative in every single thread like this and being some of the main causes of derailment into sperging.
> 
> Fix yourselves, you are part of the problem, get of the internet for a while, touch some grass.



Are they wrong?


----------



## Ser Prize (Apr 4, 2022)

Big Scumfuck said:


> The fact you both unironically believe this is pretty cringe. I see you two chucklefucks being negative in every single thread like this and being some of the main causes of derailment into sperging.
> 
> Fix yourselves, you are part of the problem, get of the internet for a while, touch some grass.


The cringe here is you. I was all on board the "we're just like you" and "we keep it in the bedroom" train. And if it had stayed at that level I would have been okay with it. But it didn't stay at that level, did it?


----------



## Red Hood (Apr 4, 2022)

The constant need for validation and representation has actually worn down my ability to tolerate. I used to be indifferent and now I'm like "fuck, I can see trouble from a mile away."


----------



## SSj_Ness (Apr 6, 2022)

Tolerance is not enough; in hindsight, it is too much. I am proudly intolerant.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 6, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> The cringe here is you. I was all on board the "we're just like you" and "we keep it in the bedroom" train. And if it had stayed at that level I would have been okay with it. But it didn't stay at that level, did it?


Don't keep it in the bedroom. Keep it in the closet.


----------



## BipolarPon (Apr 6, 2022)

Well I can't tolerate or validate Lia Thompson being in women's sports.


----------



## Iron Jaguar (Apr 6, 2022)

Big Scumfuck said:


> The fact you both unironically believe this is pretty cringe. I see you two chucklefucks being negative in every single thread like this and being some of the main causes of derailment into sperging.


I note that you can't say why we're _wrong_, just that you don't like what we say. I think _you_ might be the one with the problem, guy.


----------



## Gravityqueen4life (Apr 7, 2022)

that is how i was many years ago. i would argue that forcing me to not only accept, but to love someone because they different has made me even more hateful over the years. 

the moment you stop loving them, they call you a monster. fine, i be that monster. i be the boogieman you fear in the dark! you want a monster!? than i will be your monster!

i was not born! I WAS CREATED!


----------



## Maximultimate Gravy (Apr 7, 2022)

The fact that they need to be told by everyone that they're accepted and valid shows just how much they find it hard to accept themselves, so they need that validation from others. They need people to keep up that delusion for them, so the moment even one just "settles" for tolerance, it all breaks down.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Apr 7, 2022)

Big Scumfuck said:


> The fact you both unironically believe this is pretty cringe. I see you two chucklefucks being negative in every single thread like this and being some of the main causes of derailment into sperging.
> 
> Fix yourselves, you are part of the problem, get of the internet for a while, touch some grass.


>REEE STOP DERAILING THREADS WITH YOUR NEGATIVITY
>Derails thread to flame two users for no reason

Get mad


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 7, 2022)

> Why isn’t tolerance good enough?


SocJus activists and internet crybullies want their beliefs constantly approved so that they feel normal because they know they aren't normal. Infact this is particularly true for troons (trans goons/loons) since they usually have cluster B and are egotistic. Funnily enough, those types aren't even tolerant in the first place, eye for eye I won't tolerate them either in return then.



Lurker said:


> tolerance _is_ good enough. for example, i reluctantly tolerate trannies, but i sure as shit don't accept them nor am i going to validate their delusions.


Exactly!
I don't respect everyone and I don't want to validate everyone's opinions or ways of life, but I still tolerate everyone because the contrary would probably be societal banishment or genocide directed at them. I also support freedom of expression and freedom of speech afterall and will make sure everyone know it.
For example I think most gays are coomers and I think it's a degenerative way of life, but if they keep it in the bedroom I don't care about them. Who are they harming anyways? Themselves?
As long as they aren't actively hurting other people (criminals/pedos/etc) then I've got no beef with them and they're allowed to live like everyone else honestly.


Nationalists don't understand the concept of tolerance (Case in point on this thread), they expect everyone to agree that there are people who are subhumans and should be either eliminated or reformed and even though I agree that not everyone is born equal, everyone should be expected to be treated equally.
Fun fact: This mindset of eliminating or "improving" the undesirables is what spawned Nazism.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Apr 7, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Nationalists don't understand the concept of tolerance (Case in point on this thread), they expect everyone to agree that there are people who are subhumans and should be either eliminated or reformed and even though I agree that not everyone is born equal, everyone should be expected to be treated equally.
> Fun fact: This mindset of eliminating or "improving" the indesirables is what spawned Nazism.


I agree on principle but this is a failing of society in my mind. It is only human to want to eliminate "the others" whether it be tribalism or degeneracy from one perspective. Until we can register this and accept it in our minds, we cannot have actual tolerance. The denial and suppression of the sort of view where you want another group eliminated/disadvantaged is in itself a form of intolerance. The current societal definition of tolerance actually means anti-hate, and as soon as you're anti-anything, you've left the realm of tolerance.

For a short time it felt like we had complete tolerance. I think it was when the West was busy hating Muslims in a desert across the world, and so the conflict and division was not at home. Everyone unanimously agreed that sandniggers are bad and we should all tolerate each other to own the desert people. 

Tolerance is the best way to go. It allows for mindful, thoughtful, level-headed discussion. All you need to do is detach your emotions from your views and not get so histrionic when someone brings your perspective into question. So many people today have a fragile understanding of politics and the world though, so who can blame them? We all feel the direct consequences of the government's actions these days and it's hard to not be emotional about it at least some of the time, or on specific topics. 

Tolerance won't be grasped by the masses because it's too nuanced. You have to tolerate intolerant people which is virtuous to some, but to most, they just want to throw the intolerance back in their face. Then the intolerant are validated because they were specifically discriminated against and double-down on their position. It's a horrible feedback loop and it's glowingly evident but no one discusses it openly. Does anyone really believe that white supremacists (example group) will rise up and take over if we stop reminding everyone to hate them? I think if we tolerated them, they'd have a lot less of a foundation upon which to base hate and violence. Reactionaries wouldn't exist because there would be nothing to react to. If we just shut up and let sleeping dogs lie, we wouldn't be in this hole.


----------



## Ser Prize (Apr 7, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> SocJus activists and internet crybullies want their beliefs constantly approved so that they feel normal because they know they aren't normal. Infact this is particularly true for troons (trans goons/loons) since they usually have cluster B and are egotistic. Funnily enough, those types aren't even tolerant in the first place, eye for eye I won't tolerate them either in return then.
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> ...


Tolerance isn't a virtue, not when you're asking us to tolerate people who want to indoctrinate children and/or molest them.

Also nazism didn't create the idea of eugenics nor was it created by it. You really need better arguments than time old boomer shit like "DAT'S THE NAZIS!"


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 7, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Tolerance isn't a virtue, not when you're asking us to tolerate people who want to indoctrinate children and/or molest them.


Never did, never will. Infact I expressly stated that pedophiles and criminals don't even deserve to be tolerated. As per usual your Nationalistic ass has to make a strawman argument because that's all you've ever been taught to do on /pol/.


Ser Prize said:


> Also nazism didn't create the idea of eugenics nor was it created by it.


I also never said they created anything. Did they even create their own symbol? No they didn't. I was referring to the fact that they're genocidal maniacs who adhere to the politics of Nationalism particularly that undesirables should be removed from society (*The Nazis* wanted genocide/*You* want to revoke all their rights until they all die in prison). BTW I'm tired of my own party being lumped with yours.


----------



## YourFriendlyLurker (Apr 7, 2022)

It's the cult of fostering the weakness, a clownworld where mentally ill person is more important than mentally healthy, an ugly and weak human is more important than handsome and strong. But however hard they try to come off as "normal and important" deep down they know that they are kinda not, something is very wrong with them, that's why they need not only your tolerance but your validation. 

Tolerance is a passive thing aka "IDGAF about you as long as you DGAF about me".  Don't like tattos on your face - don't have them, EZ. Validation on the other hand is an active thing - you have to do someting to make them feel ok. Suddenly for some reason you have an obligation to care about their self-esteem and pshychological well-being simultaniously sacrificing your own.


----------



## Ser Prize (Apr 7, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Never did, never will. Infact I expressly stated that pedophiles and criminals don't even deserve to be tolerated. As per usual your Nationalistic ass has to make a strawman argument because that's all you've ever been taught to do on /pol/.
> 
> I also never said they created anything. Did they even create their own symbol? No they didn't. I was referring to the fact that they're genocidal maniacs who adhere to the politics of Nationalism particularly that indesirables should be removed from society (*The Nazis* wanted genocide/*You* want to revoke all their rights until they all die in prison). BTW I'm tired of my own party being lumped with yours.


You call me a nationalist as if you're correct, but I don't respect my own country so I don't see where you pulled that one from. Find a better strawman, sweetheart, this one ain't it.

How is it a strawman to say these people who demand tolerance now demand we tolerate them converting our kids? They've fucking said so, hell, look at the sheer amount of outrage the Florida bill to ban sex-ed for lower grades has caused. This isn't "you do your thing and I'll do mine" anymore.

First thing: you're not very historically literate if you think the nazis were the first ever political group to advocate for removing of "undesirables". 
Second thing: I want to revoke their rights because they fucking _lied to my face._ "Oh we're just like you, we won't try to groom your children or anything" became


			https://youtu.be/YW6p6z7yYlY


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 7, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> You call me a nationalist as if you're correct, but I don't respect my own country so I don't see where you pulled that one from. Find a better strawman, sweetheart, this one ain't it.


>Makes a strawman of his own, based on my post...
>I assume his character because he has the exact same talking points as every self-asserted Nationalists on Kiwi Farms and other social media.
>"Find a better strawman, sweetheart, this one ain't it."
One word: Hypocrite


Ser Prize said:


> How is it a strawman to say these people who demand tolerance now demand we tolerate them converting our kids? They've fucking said so, hell, look at the sheer amount of outrage the Florida bill to ban sex-ed for lower grades has caused. This isn't "you do your thing and I'll do mine" anymore.


You can tolerate people, but you don't have to validate or approve their opinions on any topic whatsoever. That's the whole point of this thread and somehow this flew right over your head.


Ser Prize said:


> First thing: you're not very historically literate if you think the nazis were the first ever political group to advocate for removing of "undesirables".


Again if you read my post I never said they were the first or the last. Learn to read retard and don't make-up bullshit out of nothing like you think you're so good at it.


Ser Prize said:


> Second thing: I want to revoke their rights because they fucking _lied to my face._ "Oh we're just like you, we won't try to groom your children or anything" became


Thanks for proving my point, cope and seethe harder poltard.


> https://youtu.be/YW6p6z7yYlY


Literally the first comment on your vid sums up what I think: "_For anyone who's wondering why people are so angry about this is because they're going too far. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things._"


----------



## The Wicked Mitch (Apr 7, 2022)

Im just going to hit you with the following OP, it's all on purpose - intended to debase and destroy you, an effort to force you to actively deny objective reality. You're stuck in a mental asylum and the administration demands you pretend the mumbling guy in the corner is, in fact, Napoleon. Years ago I saw a program about a Western eye surgeon that did free surgery trips in North Korea, he cured people of debilitating diseases and afterwards the group of patients was filmed in a large auditorium, one by one walking up to the front - praising and almost falling to the ground in ecstatic gratitude.. to pictures of the Kim family.

That's you ( and I ) when we're expected to pretend, audibly, publicly, that Bruce Jenner is anything but a mentally ill degenerate.


----------



## Ser Prize (Apr 7, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> >Makes a strawman of his own, based on my post...
> >I assume his character because he has the exact same talking points as every self-asserted Nationalists on Kiwi Farms and other social media.
> >"Find a better strawman, sweetheart, this one ain't it."
> One word: Hypocrite
> ...


Once again you miss the forest for the trees. I don't see how you can't see the logic behind "tolerance was where it started, never the goal". I legit don't understand how anyone can be so willfully oblivious.


----------



## SSj_Ness (Apr 7, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> I still tolerate everyone because the contrary would probably be societal banishment or genocide directed at them.


What's wrong with social banishment? The body politic need not be subjected to every human defect and mind virus just because it's perceived as "mean" not to. How else do you maintain a healthy society with standards, morals, values? Apparently we can add "reality" to that list, they want us to deny even that.

You can't give people who want to have thrusted their awful ideas onto us a place at the table.

America would never have the balls to commit genocide. The only genocide allowed is White genocide, you needn't worry for the niggers and faggots.


----------



## Manul Otocolobus (Apr 7, 2022)

One thing people who preach tolerance need to remember is Popper's Paradox:



What does it teach us? That universal tolerance isn't possible. But, Rational Tolerance is indeed possible. To determine if tolerance of something is rational, I suggest something akin to a multi-prong test. First ask yourself "Does tolerance of this harm my personal interests or the interests of those closest or most important to me?" if it does, then it isn't tolerable. If it doesn't, then ask yourself "Does it harm a group of people that are generally seen as vulnerable?" if it does, then it also isn't tolerable. If it passes the first two tests, the last one is "Does it harm the fundamental nature and/or values of my society/nation?", if it does, then it isn't tolerable. If it passes all 3, then tolerating it is rational, and thus reasonable.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 7, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Once again you miss the forest for the trees.


You literally copy pasted another one of my comment and slightly changed the text to suit you brother. Super creative!


Ser Prize said:


> I don't see how you can't see the logic behind "tolerance was where it started, never the goal". I legit don't understand how anyone can be so willfully oblivious.


That's not the argument here, what's being discussed is why should people accept other people instead of tolerating them and I answered the OP's question by saying that SJWs don't want tolerance, they want attention and validation.
Do you have dyslexia because being unable to read posts properly is a symptom of dyslexia.



SSj_Ness said:


> What's wrong with social banishment? The body politic need not be subjected to every human defect and mind virus just because it's perceived as "mean" not to. How else do you maintain a healthy society with standards, morals, values? Apparently we can add "reality" to that list, they want us to deny even that.


Societal banishment happened in the medieval age, you were basically banned from someplace and had to go live elsewhere. This dated stuff creates homelessness more than it solves anything.

I agree with that, not everyone is fit for politics, for example social justice warriors are not fit for it.

What were the standards, morals and values millenia ago? It was a good thing to kill atheists. Anyone arguing morals will always meet this dilemma that morals sometimes are less ethical than no morals at all.

Loony troons are annoying I admit that much.


SSj_Ness said:


> You can't give people who want to have thrusted their awful ideas onto us a place at the table.
> 
> America would never have the balls to commit genocide. The only genocide allowed is White genocide, you needn't worry for the niggers and faggots.


Again it's the same thing you're speaking about for the body politics and it's a different issue at hand.

Mate, do you seriously believe that dumb crap? Black supremacists literally have their own version of it called the black genocide because likewise they're afraid of niggas marrying whiteys.


----------



## General Disarray (Apr 7, 2022)

Yeah I don't tolerate shit. Freedom of association is still a thing, and there's always another bar down the block or two if you can't handle me and my very outspoken self. I love when half the place defends me and the other half wants to haul me out by my earlobe.

It's all so tedious and petty when people want to grill me on my politics or bring up a controversial subject to gauge my reaction (I rarely start it up because I honestly do just want to have a good time), but I *do* want others to be emboldened to speak their minds in turn and I think I achieve that for the most part. It's a fine line to walk to speak intelligently and wittily while remaining civil enough to keep the discussion from getting too heated (especially when drinking), and there are places I really don't want to get permabanned from.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 7, 2022)

General Disarray said:


> Yeah I don't tolerate shit. Freedom of association is still a thing, and there's always another bar down the block or two if you can't handle me and my very outspoken self. I love when half the place defends me and the other half wants to haul me out by my earlobe.
> 
> It's all so tedious and petty when people want to grill me on my politics or bring up a controversial subject to gauge my reaction (I rarely start it up because I honestly do just want to have a good time), but I *do* want others to be emboldened to speak their minds in turn and I think I achieve that for the most part. It's a fine line to walk to speak intelligently and wittily while remaining civil enough to keep the discussion from getting too heated (especially when drinking), and there are places I really don't want to get permabanned from.


The second half of people in that bar should probably learn about freedom of speech.


----------



## SSj_Ness (Apr 7, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Societal banishment happened in the medieval age, you were basically banned from someplace and had to go live elsewhere. This dated stuff creates homelessness more than it solves anything.


Oh no, _homeless degenerates_. Now that's a problem. 

Seriously though, there has to be a compromise somewhere other than tolerance. Once you give them an inch, they take a mile. If not societal banishment then what aside from tolerance? Maybe a Jim Crow-lite type of thing? Marxists at the back of the bus?



Kiwi & Cow said:


> I agree with that, not everyone is fit for politics, for example social justice warriors are not fit for it.


But how do you stop them if you're actively tolerating them? We end up with absolute trash in positions of power. Our government is littered with Lori Lightfoots and AOCs, and they make the country worse.

I don't care if it's mean to say "no" to them. I say fucking NO.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> What were the standards, morals and values millenia ago? It was a good thing to kill atheists. Anyone arguing morals will always meet this dilemma that morals sometimes are less ethical than no morals at all.


Come on, stop that. We don't need to analyze the snapshots of history we have from our cushy modern lives and wag our fingers. Fact is our modern standards, morals, and values up until recently have worked out pretty well but Marxists seek to revolutionize them.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Loony troons are annoying I admit that much.


That's putting it _really_ lightly.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Mate, do you seriously believe that dumb crap? Black supremacists literally have their own version of it called the black genocide because likewise they're afraid of niggas marrying whiteys.


Why wouldn't I believe it?


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 8, 2022)

SSj_Ness said:


> Oh no, _homeless degenerates_. Now that's a problem.


It will be when it comes down to welfare. I know I don't like welfare and I'm pretty sure you don't like it either.


SSj_Ness said:


> Seriously though, there has to be a compromise somewhere other than tolerance. Once you give them an inch, they take a mile. If not societal banishment then what aside from tolerance? Maybe a Jim Crow-lite type of thing? Marxists at the back of the bus?


Don't let them take a mile. The issues we're seeing today were not due to tolerance, but excessive acceptance. Political pundits on the left have concocted rhetoric and propaganda to destabilise what they view as the status quo to push bullshit forward. Most trannies don't have dysphoria and yet here we are and the leftists are to blame for it, plus the naive centrists who let this shit to pass.
TL;DR: You can tolerate people, but you have no reason to accept/validate their ideas.

Also Marxists should be at the back of the bus, they never experienced segregation, so I mean why not?


SSj_Ness said:


> But how do you stop them if you're actively tolerating them? We end up with absolute trash in positions of power. Our government is littered with Lori Lightfoots and AOCs, and they make the country worse.
> 
> I don't care if it's mean to say "no" to them. I say fucking NO.


Retards in congress are democratically elected, try to get people together and then get someone you like up and running, that's how Trump won.


SSj_Ness said:


> Come on, stop that. We don't need to analyze the snapshots of history we have from our cushy modern lives and wag our fingers. Fact is our modern standards, morals, and values up until recently have worked out pretty well but Marxists seek to revolutionize them.


Your argument was that we need to uphold morals unlike the dirty leftists who want to get rid of them and it's never been a good argument. Infact that's not what worries me, what worries me with Marxist bullshit is that it has consistently ended up in Totaliatiarianism and I value my own security as much as my neighbour's.


SSj_Ness said:


> Why wouldn't I believe it?


It's a dumb conspiracy theory for the most part. If anything the niggers aren't trying to replace you, whiteys are purposefully marrying and getting pregnant with them. Another facet of this issue comes from the incel movement, so many whiteys in recent years can't get laid because they're born ugly or retarded.


----------



## SSj_Ness (Apr 8, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> It will be when it comes down to welfare. I know I don't like welfare and I'm pretty sure you don't like it either.


The welfare system is shit, restructure it and I have no problem with it though. And we can set up food banks, even the worst people deserve to eat something. Please enjoy the moldy old bread, pink slime, dry limes, and bottled tap water.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Don't let them take a mile. The issues we're seeing today were not due to tolerance, but excessive acceptance. Political pundits on the left have concocted rhetoric and propaganda to destabilise what they view as the status quo to push bullshit forward. Most trannies don't have dysphoria and yet here we are and the leftists are to blame for it, plus the naive centrists who let this shit to pass.
> TL;DR: You can tolerate people, but you have no reason to accept/validate their ideas.
> 
> Also Marxists should be at the back of the bus, they never experienced segregation, so I mean why not?


"Don't let them" might work on paper, in theory, but in practice I'm not sure it is possible to maintain such vigilance. Over a period of generations, each subsequent one is more and more influenced to break the line. Social change is often slow acting.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Retards in congress are democratically elected, try to get people together and then get someone you like up and running, that's how Trump won.


Retards electing retards is a problem to cut off at the source, why accept endless vying for power with actual retards? They're also not beyond dirty tactics and cheating: see our Weekend at Bernie's president. 



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Your argument was that we need to uphold morals unlike the dirty leftists who want to get rid of them and it's never been a good argument.


Instead of telling me why it's never been a good argument _before_, tell me why it's not a good argument _now_.

That would require you to deny the unprecedented sickness offered to us by the left. What good is anything they want? Ship them to North fucking Korea.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Infact that's not what worries me, what worries me with Marxist bullshit is that it has consistently ended up in Totaliatiarianism and I value my own security as much as my neighbour's.


I don't follow you here.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> It's a dumb conspiracy theory for the most part. If anything the niggers aren't trying to replace you, whiteys are purposefully marrying and getting pregnant with them. Another facet of this issue comes from the incel movement, so many whiteys in recent years can't get laid because they're born ugly or retarded.


Did you even fucking watch the video or are you going to sperg about incels like a cornered pro-abortionist?


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 8, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> What were the standards, morals and values millenia ago? It was a good thing to kill atheists. Anyone arguing morals will always meet this dilemma that morals sometimes are less ethical than no morals at all.



There is no such thing as "no morals at all." Proclaiming that there should be "no morals at all" is itself a normative statement and therefore a moral stance. This is doublethink.


SSj_Ness said:


> Seriously though, there has to be a compromise somewhere other than tolerance. Once you give them an inch, they take a mile. If not societal banishment then what aside from tolerance? Maybe a Jim Crow-lite type of thing? Marxists at the back of the bus?



The means of controlling immoral behavior already exist. These means have simply been perverted and turned to foul purpose by, let's say, certain subversive actors. It's called cancel culture today, and while that term might be new, the basic concept of informal social policing is not. In the past, if you promoted communism, faggotry, or other evil viewpoints, you would be cancelled. Now, if you oppose them, you will be cancelled.

One way that this reversal was achieved: People like our friend Kiwi & Cow here have been taught to believe that they should have "no morals at all," causing them to abandon the field en masse. And, of course, the enemy was ready and waiting to fill that gap.



SSj_Ness said:


> Retards electing retards is a problem to cut off at the source, why accept endless vying for power with actual retards? They're also not beyond dirty tactics and cheating: see our Weekend at Bernie's president.



Voting is a charade to placate the masses. Public opinion has near-zero correlation with policy outcomes. This can be measured objectively.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 9, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> There is no such thing as "no morals at all." Proclaiming that there should be "no morals at all" is itself a normative statement and therefore a moral stance. This is doublethink.


Completely missing the point eh? Wouldn't expect anything less coming from you.


gang weeder said:


> The means of controlling immoral behavior already exist. These means have simply been perverted and turned to foul purpose by, let's say, certain subversive actors. It's called cancel culture today, and while that term might be new, the basic concept of informal social policing is not. In the past, if you promoted communism, faggotry, or other evil viewpoints, you would be cancelled. Now, if you oppose them, you will be cancelled.







gang weeder said:


> One way that this reversal was achieved: People like our friend Kiwi & Cow here have been taught to believe that they should have "no morals at all," causing them to abandon the field en masse. And, of course, the enemy was ready and waiting to fill that gap.


No, you missed the point again. The argument is that arguing morals is as retarded if not more than arguing whether something is natural or unnatural and almost exclusively used by fundamentalists to give themselves a reason to hate any group of people they want. Go cry about muh morals in your corner bro.


gang weeder said:


> Voting is a charade to placate the masses. Public opinion has near-zero correlation with policy outcomes. This can be measured objectively.


That's how Hitler got himself elected, so. You can always try to get Hitler 2 to be elected, he'll make sure to gas the jews, ban women from the workforce and politics, send the fags and trannies to Africa and enslave niggers like you always daydreamed of in class.







SSj_Ness said:


> The welfare system is shit, restructure it and I have no problem with it though. And we can set up food banks, even the worst people deserve to eat something.


Glad we could agree on anything.


SSj_Ness said:


> "Don't let them" might work on paper, in theory, but in practice I'm not sure it is possible to maintain such vigilance. Over a period of generations, each subsequent one is more and more influenced to break the line. Social change is often slow acting.


Yes it is. Freedom of speech has been maintained in America since its conception, so why couldn't anything else stand? Also like everyone else if something is retarded and outlandish then we can protest it or call it out, censorship and Totalitarianism is never the answer to combat loonies.


SSj_Ness said:


> Retards electing retards is a problem to cut off at the source, why accept endless vying for power with actual retards?


What are you proposing? Meritocracy?


SSj_Ness said:


> Instead of telling me why it's never been a good argument _before_, tell me why it's not a good argument _now_.
> 
> That would require you to deny the unprecedented sickness offered to us by the left. What good is anything they want? Ship them to North fucking Korea.


Morals can be used to justify anything from bans to censorship, to murders or genocide.


SSj_Ness said:


> Did you even fucking watch the video or are you going to sperg about incels like a cornered pro-abortionist?


I did for 15 seconds and it's 15 seconds too much, this video is retarded. It's basically Joe Biden whining about immigration and maybe diversity if I had watched more of the vid.


----------



## Schway (Apr 9, 2022)

A question to all the people calling for tolerance since anything else would have horrible results like banishment, genocide, lack of race-mixing and whatever else. Since you're asking people advocating for the lack of tolerance to be morally accountable for the outcome of that, are you willing to be held morally accountable for the outcome of this tolerance you preach?

The way I see it every single person that kept saying "They just wanna get married", "It's just some college kids", " They're just like us"  and the other 100 copes out there are responsible for the current state of things. 



Kiwi & Cow said:


> It's a dumb conspiracy theory for the most part. If anything the niggers aren't trying to replace you, whiteys are purposefully marrying and getting pregnant with them. Another facet of this issue comes from the incel movement, so many whiteys in recent years can't get laid because they're born ugly or retarded.


Lol, every single time.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 9, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> No, you missed the point again. The argument is that arguing morals is as retarded if not more than arguing whether something is natural or unnatural and almost exclusively used by fundamentalists to give themselves a reason to hate any group of people they want. Go cry about muh morals in your corner bro.



You are arguing morals right now. Doublethink.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 9, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> You are arguing morals right now. Doublethink.


*MUH MORALS*


Schway said:


> A question to all the people calling for tolerance since anything else would have horrible results like banishment, genocide, lack of race-mixing and whatever else. Since you're asking people advocating for the lack of tolerance to be morally accountable for the outcome of that, are you willing to be held morally accountable for the outcome of this tolerance you preach?


Tolerance is not acceptance, I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but I'll be bothered by troons trying to groom children IRL to become trans and I also don't agree with SJW bollocks that's being passed as laws for a good while. You conflate acceptance with tolerance that's your problem bud, you're so Authoritarian that you can't understand a concept as basic as "live and let live".


----------



## Ser Prize (Apr 9, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> There is no such thing as "no morals at all." Proclaiming that there should be "no morals at all" is itself a normative statement and therefore a moral stance. This is doublethink.
> 
> 
> The means of controlling immoral behavior already exist. These means have simply been perverted and turned to foul purpose by, let's say, certain subversive actors. It's called cancel culture today, and while that term might be new, the basic concept of informal social policing is not. In the past, if you promoted communism, faggotry, or other evil viewpoints, you would be cancelled. Now, if you oppose them, you will be cancelled.
> ...


Someone like Kiwi and Cow is really the perfect stooge for such influences; someone who will hold several contradictory views despite themselves, all because they feel the best.

Someone who will say "we must always be tolerant" but who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that 'tolerance' was just the foot in the door and was never the goal.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 9, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Someone like Kiwi and Cow is really the perfect stooge for such influences; someone who will hold several contradictory views despite themselves, all because they feel the best.
> 
> Someone who will say "we must always be tolerant" but who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that 'tolerance' was just the foot in the door and was never the goal.


You clearly don't know me that well if you think that and also the fact you're ignoring people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Blaire White out of convenience for your argument is retarded. Anyways go back to /pol/, BTW this thread was better without you.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Apr 9, 2022)

Tolerance is self-contradictory on its own in the given the broad societal and political context we're discussing it in. Human nature and by extension, power groups, needs someone to be intolerant of in order to consolidate power and control. Human nature means we really love having an "other" to want to overcome. 

The nuance and contradiction comes in droves. We're talking a lot about the separation of acceptance/validation from tolerance. While any one person being tolerant does not constitute acceptance or validation, that is only one side of the coin. If I am being tolerated by society for hateful views, I may feel more comfortable expressing them and congregating with like-minded people who may have more or less extreme views than me. This has potential to be dangerous, but it's not like laws against hate speech or intolerance do anything. People and in particular, extremists, will still congregate and share ideas. The KKK for instance is still a large and cohesive organization despite the amount of political and social pressure there is for that group to cease existing. 

So, can we really be an effective society if we spend an equal amount of energy and resources _hating them_ for hating others? I would say no, as all you're doing is replacing one form of extremism with another one, case in point being the views of certain users in this thread. Hint: you're being called a nazi because you're expressing the same nazi-fied views of Leftists, which is to destroy "the other" and remove their language and culture from society. 

What needs to happen is policymakers need to take tolerance not only as tolerating negative views, but also tolerating equality and opportunity of the individual. The way we have policies that place certain people on a pedestal for having a skin color is equally as bad as throwing them in prison for that factor. It needs to be a foundation of human tolerance, not race or sexuality or whatever other ism that needs to be tolerated. 

Tolerance means we can talk, but not that I will capitulate or agree or validate you. I might end up just telling you to kill yourself. Tolerance means I don't try to debase you as a human being for having a shit opinion. But tolerance also requires I don't call for you or anyone of your ilk to be lynched. When it comes to tolerance, there can never be too much tolerance of opinions. It is important that we all exchange even the most heinous of views to gain a better understanding of each other and the world we exist in. 

We have (or maybe had, given rapid developments) pretty effective limitations on expression and speech. You can't call for violence, make threats, conspire to commit a crime, etc.  This protects people from individuals with intent to do harm, which is wholly different from speaking an opinion, and often our speech is what brings our intentions out to the world. There's a fair amount of specificity in the precedents in Western law of what constitutes threats and conspiracy, by the way. The alternative is to not stop someone until they act on their speech. These are the limitations on tolerance of others. 

We _all_ have to let sleeping dogs lie for it to be an effective societal tool. Unfortunately that will never be the case, as extremism and radicalization will always carry on. The government will always see a threat to be intolerant toward. 



Spoiler: An aside



I have to laugh at the users calling out others for having multiple conflicting viewpoints like it's some kind of insult. That's what understanding nuance looks like. You're approaching an issue from multiple angles and ascribing different principles to the problem to come up with a novel solution or at least a novel way of looking at things. There are hundreds of cookie-cutter staple viewpoints that we can adapt but it's useless for discussion and it's useless for growth and understanding. If you are so rigid in your views that you refuse to even look at it a different way, you're only harming yourself and making yourself look stupid. Resorting to histrionics and whining looks really bad too. But you're experiencing properly executed tolerance firsthand: you're still here, you're still screaming, and you're still opinionated. If _we_ used _your_ approach to address _your_ opinions, you'd be in the gulags of every other user in this thread, and that's why no one likes your viewpoint.


----------



## Lurker (Apr 9, 2022)

for the people against tolerance, consider that when you see someone you don't like walking down the street, do you go out of your way to attack them? most likely you don't. that's tolerance. you are unknowingly practicing tolerance.

tolerance is not the same as acceptance or validation, and i don't understand how people in this thread continue to conflate the two. accepting someone would be to befriend them, to invite them into your crowd.


----------



## Schway (Apr 9, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Tolerance is not acceptance, I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but I'll be bothered by troons trying to groom children IRL to become trans and I also don't agree with SJW bollocks that's being passed as laws for a good while. You conflate acceptance with tolerance that's your problem bud, you're so Authoritarian that you can't understand a concept as basic as "live and let live".


That's funny, because no-one can care or not care what people do behind closed doors, they are by definition outside of what you can see. That's why that was always a pithy phrase that meant "Allow and provide things for my lifestyle"  . You can keep standing there and saying "Oh I tolerate it but don't accept it", it's nothing but cope for the fact that you tolerating it allowed this to happen. Besides if you're "tolerating" it all that means is that you dislike it but are not going to do anything about it. What part of tolerance means that you have to go and stop people who are not willing to tolerate it?

If someone opens a dam and the water rushes out and drowns the village, they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. If someone knocks down the walls and the barbarians assault, they are responsible for that happening. I couldn't give less of a damn about your Intentions and how people like you thought trannies, gays ect. were gonna just gonna get hurt less and everything else was going to remain unchanged. That's not an excuse, it's just a testament to ignorance.


----------



## Ser Prize (Apr 9, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Tolerance is self-contradictory on its own in the given the broad societal and political context we're discussing it in. Human nature and by extension, power groups, needs someone to be intolerant of in order to consolidate power and control. Human nature means we really love having an "other" to want to overcome.
> 
> The nuance and contradiction comes in droves. We're talking a lot about the separation of acceptance/validation from tolerance. While any one person being tolerant does not constitute acceptance or validation, that is only one side of the coin. If I am being tolerated by society for hateful views, I may feel more comfortable expressing them and congregating with like-minded people who may have more or less extreme views than me. This has potential to be dangerous, but it's not like laws against hate speech or intolerance do anything. People and in particular, extremists, will still congregate and share ideas. The KKK for instance is still a large and cohesive organization despite the amount of political and social pressure there is for that group to cease existing.
> 
> ...


You seem to be under the impression that being 'intolerant' in this context means being some kind of raging caricature thinking about how much you hate things 24/7. Maybe that's the case for some, but I don't personally think that applies to me.

I repeat what I said at the start of all this: had things stayed at the 'people will just do things quietly in their rooms' I wouldn't be engaging in this conversation. But it didn't stay that way. They made every effort to push it into your life, via schooling, entertainment, political stuff, etc. Fuck, there's literally a whole month now-a-days dedicated to celebrating queerness.

I didn't sign up for that stuff. I signed up for quietly allowing people to quietly do what they want in their own rooms. People like @Kiwi & Cow say that 'it's just the sjw pushing that' but wasn't it the proto-sjw of yesteryear pushing all the 'in their own rooms' thing? What makes anyone think we can arbitrarily draw a line in the sand and say 'okay this is enough'?

Because if I'm being intolerant for not wanting gay shit pushed in my face 24/7 for a whole month then 'tolerance' can go fuck itself and so can it's religious adherents.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 9, 2022)

Schway said:


> That's funny, because no-one can care or not care what people do behind closed doors, they are by definition outside of what you can see. That's why that was always a pithy phrase that meant "Allow and provide things for my lifestyle"  . You can keep standing there and saying "Oh I tolerate it but don't accept it", it's nothing but cope for the fact that you tolerating it allowed this to happen. Besides if you're "tolerating" it all that means is that you dislike it but are not going to do anything about it. What part of tolerance means that you have to go and stop people who are not willing to tolerate it?
> 
> If someone opens a dam and the water rushes out and drowns the village, they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. If someone knocks down the walls and the barbarians assault, they are responsible for that happening. I couldn't give less of a damn about your Intentions and how people like you thought trannies, gays ect. were gonna just gonna get hurt less and everything else was going to remain unchanged. That's not an excuse, it's just a testament to ignorance.


Osmosis Jones basically answered your concerns, but here's a TL;DR anyways. Tolerating a person doesn't mean letting them do whatever the hell they want if it happens to be criminal or disruptive hence although pedophiles probably do their thing behind closed doors I'll have a problem with that because a kid is harmed in this situation. If someone does something that harms another person they don't deserve any pity really, just to be put behind bars.

We're in this current sociopolitical climate because of excessive acceptance, not tolerance and tolerance is especially important because tolerance includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc. Many atheists seem to be anti-theist and yet they tolerate Christians imagine if they didn't they'd just go set churches on fire.

Try to have a more nuanced outlook on the issue before sperging about it on an internet forum.


----------



## Schway (Apr 9, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Osmosis Jones basically answered your concerns, but here's a TL;DR anyways. Tolerating a person doesn't mean letting them do whatever the hell they want if it happens to be criminal or disruptive hence although pedophiles probably do their thing behind closed doors I'll have a problem with that because a kid is harmed in this situation. If someone does something that harms another person they don't deserve any pity really, just to be put behind bars.
> 
> We're in this current sociopolitical climate because of excessive acceptance, not tolerance and tolerance is especially important because tolerance includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc. Many atheists seem to be anti-theist and yet they tolerate Christians imagine if they didn't they'd just go set churches on fire.
> 
> Try to have a more nuanced outlook on the issue before sperging about it on an internet forum.


It's not about me not understanding the "nuance" of what you're saying, I'm telling you it doesn't work. You can play whatever semantic games you want to but the fact of the matter remains that your imagined scenario did not happen, and that people with an outlook similar to yours led to it.

You're the one that has a definition issue anyway, since your pedophile example doesn't make any sense. You by definition have a problem with what anyone you're "tolerating" does, that's what you're "tolerating". If you're tolerant of transexuals you believe what they're doing is bad, it on some level offends you but you choose not to do anything about it, not to act on it.

What you're arguing for like you've stated yourself before is "Live and let live" and unlike what you seem to think, it's not that anyone here doesn't understand the concept or hasn't heard of it, it's just that it's been proven so utterly unworkable that it's a joke at this point. There are morals necessary for a healthy society beyond "Do what thou wilt". "Tolerance" as you frame it is only possible in a morally healthy society when the big questions of what the society is about are resolved, hence people can tolerate other relatively insignificant issues because the cost-benefit analysis isn't worth it. The reason you perceive tolerance as this overriding thing encompassing the "big questions" like sex, religion ect.  is because in order to achieve your virtue of tolerance all those big questions of identity have been reduced to consumer insignificant status. TLDR: If you want people to tolerate each other on basically everything you have to grind them down to a fine paste.

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion these things don't cast as wide a net as you think they do. All of these were concepts back when being gay was considered a crime, blacks were slaves, blasphemy laws were in place ect. That's because they were embedded, indivisibly in the context of their time. They were since subverted and used as leverage in order for those groups you tolerate to obtain political power, and in a shocking twist, once they had that power they didn't much care to provide the same road to it for others so they suddenly had their own blasphemy laws ect in place.
Lesson being, you either have morals you enforce or someone else will enforce theirs.

So you can talk about how you're only tolerant of a certain level of gay sex/trannies, but these things aren't a charcuterie board for you to pick and choose from. Your tolerance argued and actively supported the ideological ancestors of the degenerates in power today and they did absolutely nothing to restrain them to that "healthy" libertarian level of faggotry when the time came. That's the "nuance" of the situation for you.


----------



## Isaac (Apr 9, 2022)

Tolerating them isn't enough, we should love our neighbours, preach them the Gospel and shelter them through the shadow of valley of darkness.

It has been sixty five years since the publishing of Atlas Shrugged, over a hundred since the beginning of Libertarianism and 
the ideology has already done systemic damage to our civilization.


----------



## Mexican_Wizard_711 (Apr 9, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Osmosis Jones basically answered your concerns, but here's a TL;DR anyways. Tolerating a person doesn't mean letting them do whatever the hell they want if it happens to be criminal or disruptive hence although pedophiles probably do their thing behind closed doors I'll have a problem with that because a kid is harmed in this situation. If someone does something that harms another person they don't deserve any pity really, just to be put behind bars.
> 
> We're in this current sociopolitical climate because of excessive acceptance, not tolerance and tolerance is especially important because tolerance includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc. Many atheists seem to be anti-theist and yet they tolerate Christians imagine if they didn't they'd just go set churches on fire.
> 
> Try to have a more nuanced outlook on the issue before sperging about it on an internet forum.


Life is a Zero Sum Game


----------



## SouthernBitchBob (Apr 9, 2022)

I just want to get married someday. I don't think doing it through the force of government fiat was the best answer. Troons and groomers are insane. Unfortunately the gay "community" believes the opposite of all these things. When you fling them into the ostracism pits could you leave me alone? I don't want your kids. I don't like kids, but I'm not a monster who thinks they should be mistreated or tricked into fucked up sex nonsense.


----------



## SSj_Ness (Apr 9, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Glad we could agree on anything.


That _is_ nice.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Yes it is.


"Don't let them take a mile" HASN'T worked though, so no, it is not possible, or if it is it's only possible in theory. I'd rather undesirable social influences never get their foot in the door to begin with, and I just don't see why you think they should be allowed to. To what end would you allow that to happen? What's the goal?



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Also like everyone else if something is retarded and outlandish then we can protest it or call it out, censorship and Totalitarianism is never the answer to combat loonies.


Why let it take root only to then be forced to oppose it and hope "calling it out" is sufficient when it may not be?

Your entire argument is "let bad seeds be planted, then wrangle with them once they grow strong, because it's bad for some reason to prevent that". If totalitarianism is "no, actually, you can't preach that Whites are the devil and men can be women" then _good_, I like it.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> What are you proposing? Meritocracy?


I don't necessarily need to propose anything to point out that what we have isn't working well enough, but Plato's form of aristocracy would be very good. Ideally we'd have a Christian theocracy, but nobody will even entertain that notion.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> Morals can be used to justify anything from bans to censorship, to murders or genocide.


Sure, I suppose bad morals could lead to genocide, but nothing I support could ever lead to that. The only exception to condoning genocide would be in nuclear war. If we had to wipe a nation out for self-preservation, it's a necessary action (like vaporizing North Korea if they made a credible threat).



Kiwi & Cow said:


> I did for 15 seconds and it's 15 seconds too much, this video is retarded. It's basically Joe Biden whining about immigration and maybe diversity if I had watched more of the vid.


I like you, but you should really shut the fuck up on this particular subject until you _at least_ watch the mother fucking president of the United States of America glowingly praise the diminishment of Whites in no uncertain terms.


----------



## SouthernBitchBob (Apr 9, 2022)

I'd also point out that what I hear a lot is "they _said_ they just wanted to get married, but now look at what letting those dirty gays do has caused! I was all for letting them get on with their lives, but it was just a foot in the door!"

This suggests to me that it's entirely consistent to hold the views "let the 'normal' gays live as they want as long as they're not shoving my face in it" and "groomers and public nudity and sex pestilence and psycho troons are a blight upon society". Since these views appear to be fairly easy to hold at the same time, I'd suggest that there's _not_ in fact some inexorable, inevitable slippery slope from letting gays play house to letting troons diddle your kids, and that instead these psychos exist whether or not you let them in through one gap or another; they're going to look for the next one anyway. I know there are some genuinely mentally ill trannies out there who could benefit from some drug or therapy or whatever ends up being the solution to their mental illness. I think those people deserve help when the medical establishment catches up to them. I also think the massive tidal wave of fetishist autogynephiles and autoandrophiles deserve a smackdown, and it would be great if we (individually, and less realistically as a social whole) could differentiate between "person who is a little weird but not negatively impacting me or my kids and doesn't want to" and "unstable self-destructive freakshow who'd rather see the world burn than give up the quest to exert invasive sociopathic control over all their eyes touch". 

These nutcases will of COURSE try to worm their way in through various "rights" group movements. Those groups are looking to change something about society. That change lets them get near the levers of power. Getting near the levers of power is all those psychos want. I don't think the solution is "never change anything because crazy people want to change things too". It's "identify and expel crazy people before they get a chance to do it".


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 9, 2022)

Lurker said:


> for the people against tolerance, consider that when you see someone you don't like walking down the street, do you go out of your way to attack them? most likely you don't. that's tolerance. you are unknowingly practicing tolerance.
> 
> tolerance is not the same as acceptance or validation, and i don't understand how people in this thread continue to conflate the two. accepting someone would be to befriend them, to invite them into your crowd.



No, I don't randomly attack trannies in the street, because that would be an ineffective means of resistance and end up only hurting me. This does not mean that I am okay sharing a society with trannies and will not pursue effective means of opposing their influence.



Osmosis Jones said:


> What needs to happen is policymakers need to take tolerance not only as tolerating negative views, but also tolerating equality and opportunity of the individual. The way we have policies that place certain people on a pedestal for having a skin color is equally as bad as throwing them in prison for that factor. It needs to be a foundation of human tolerance, not race or sexuality or whatever other ism that needs to be tolerated.



This outcome is inevitable in a multiracial/multicultural society. Races will compete and one race or another will have the advantage. If you truly wish to mitigate this problem, you would have to advocate for ethnostates.



Osmosis Jones said:


> Tolerance means we can talk, but not that I will capitulate or agree or validate you. I might end up just telling you to kill yourself. Tolerance means I don't try to debase you as a human being for having a shit opinion. But tolerance also requires I don't call for you or anyone of your ilk to be lynched. When it comes to tolerance, there can never be too much tolerance of opinions. It is important that we all exchange even the most heinous of views to gain a better understanding of each other and the world we exist in.



I would disagree that "there can never be too much tolerance of opinions" and I would posit that everyone except for maybe full-on psychopaths feels the same, if they are being thorough and honest. Case in point: Pedophilia. If someone speaks openly, earnestly, and relentlessly about how much they want to rape babies, there is no redeeming quality to this speech. There is no virtue in tolerating it, and if you were exposed to it, you would quickly behave accordingly (i.e. you'd either shut that person up or get the fuck away from them).

More interesting though, is your statement "But tolerance also requires I don't call for you or anyone of your ilk to be lynched." So that means that leftists need to be silenced, correct? Because leftism mostly consists of calling for wrongthinkers to be lynched, as I've pointed out several times by now. Using your "freeze peach" to simply call for The Bad People to be killed or otherwise harmed by any possible means is _not _some kind of innocent exchange of ideas, it is the antithesis of what you have in mind when you advocate for free speech, and indeed actively undermines any genuine exchange of ideas.


Osmosis Jones said:


> I have to laugh at the users calling out others for having multiple conflicting viewpoints like it's some kind of insult. That's what understanding nuance looks like. You're approaching an issue from multiple angles and ascribing different principles to the problem to come up with a novel solution or at least a novel way of looking at things. There are hundreds of cookie-cutter staple viewpoints that we can adapt but it's useless for discussion and it's useless for growth and understanding. If you are so rigid in your views that you refuse to even look at it a different way, you're only harming yourself and making yourself look stupid. Resorting to histrionics and whining looks really bad too. But you're experiencing properly executed tolerance firsthand: you're still here, you're still screaming, and you're still opinionated. If _we_ used _your_ approach to address _your_ opinions, you'd be in the gulags of every other user in this thread, and that's why no one likes your viewpoint.



Proclaiming "there should be no morals at all" is, again, paradoxical and thus doublethink. It is _not _nuance. Nuance would involve a discussion of exactly which speech is acceptable and which isn't, trying to thread some kind of delicate line between the two. Nonsense is not nuance.


----------



## Aero the Alcoholic Bat (Apr 11, 2022)

Insecurity, mainly.

There are some things which are not normal, and will never truly be "normal" no matter how much they're validated or accepted or "normalized."  And in many instances, that's OK.

For instance, no matter how you feel about homosexuality, just think for a minute:  If a majority, or even large minority, of people were actually LGBTQ, wouldn't that cause societal collapse at best, or human extinction at worst?  We have a hard time keeping our birth rates up as it is.

You don't have to have the natural ability to carry human society to feel good about yourself, but come on.  Stop pretending that it's equal to heterosexuality.  There's a damned good reason why many people don't believe that homosexuals are entitled to the "right" to get married.


----------



## Wormy (Apr 17, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> The second half of people in that bar should probably learn about freedom of speech.


Freedom of Speech does not include "Obligated to listen to your sorry ass".


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 18, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Freedom of Speech does not include "Obligated to listen to your sorry ass".


Yup, but they are not obligated to attack anyone for speaking up his mind either.


Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:


> There's a damned good reason why many people don't believe that homosexuals are entitled to the "right" to get married.


There are people who want to legalise marriage with animals or children. 
I don't think two gays getting together is harming anyone contrary to a man and a kid or a man and an animal.


----------



## Wormy (Apr 18, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> up, but they are not obligated to attack anyone for speaking up his mind either.


If I stand up and say "You're full of shit and we don't care", that's also my freedom of speech. 


Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:


> If a majority, or even large minority, of people were actually LGBTQ, wouldn't that cause societal collapse at best, or human extinction at worst?


And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hopped. If such a thing legit becomes a possibility, then I'll worry, but that's so far out it's still got a nice suite in fantasy land.


----------



## Aero the Alcoholic Bat (Apr 18, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hopped. If such a thing legit becomes a possibility, then I'll worry, but that's so far out it's still got a nice suite in fantasy land.


A large minority of Zoomers identify as LGTBQ.  40%, I think.

It's not that I support conversion therapy or anything (on the grounds that it doesn't work), but if homosexuality were the result of nurture rather than nature, that's potentially worrying.




Kiwi & Cow said:


> There are people who want to legalise marriage with animals or children.
> I don't think two gays getting together is harming anyone contrary to a man and a kid or a man and an animal.


Whether or not it "hurts" anyone else is irrelevant.

The institution of marriage is intended to foster the best environment for children to grow up in, and to provide parental role models of both sexes, at the *bare minimum.  *Homosexual couples cannot provide that.

Marriage is not intended as a means to validate those with disordered sexualities, no matter how benign it may seem.


----------



## SouthernBitchBob (Apr 18, 2022)

The institution of marriage is "intended" to unify resources and smooth relations between two rival families, too. Does the married gay couple next door ruin your marriage and spoil the family values you've instilled in your kids? All of this "think of the children" bullshit falls apart with the smallest pushes. What if the gay couple doesn't want kids?

"Marriage" is a legal contract, and creating that contract between two adult strangers doesn't cheapen your own contract. Unless you're a religious nut cloaking your religious nuttery by pretending you have ever-increasingly goofy secular objections, but we've seen *that* for years. Just go back to saying it's against the Will of Jesus, at least that deranged ranting was honest.


----------



## Wormy (Apr 18, 2022)

Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:


> A large minority of Zoomers identify as LGTBQ. 40%, I think.


I don't buy it. Trenders.


----------



## Aero the Alcoholic Bat (Apr 18, 2022)

SouthernBitchBob said:


> "Marriage" is a legal contract, and creating that contract between two adult strangers doesn't cheapen your own contract. Unless you're a religious nut cloaking your religious nuttery by pretending you have ever-increasingly goofy secular objections, but we've seen *that* for years. Just go back to saying it's against the Will of Jesus, at least that deranged ranting was honest.


I was once a lolbertarian too.

The gay couple could just cohabitate in peace.  Few gay couples even express interest in getting married.  The reason to have marriage be a legal institution in the first place is out of the assumption that it benefits society at large.  Homosexual couples don't really do that, even if they don't cause any "harm" either.  Otherwise we'd only have common law marriages at most, or just let adults cohabitate unceremoniously.

There's also a major push to legitimize polyamory or cuckoldry, which the LGBTQ community wholeheartedly embraces.  And even if you were to make the case that marriage could include homosexual couples, it definitely would cheapen or degrade the institution of marriage to include those.

And if there's anything we could gather from casual observation of current events, the slippery slope isn't as much of a fallacy as we thought it was.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 18, 2022)

I was once a lolbertarian too.


Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:


> The gay couple could just cohabitate in peace.  Few gay couples even express interest in getting married.  The reason to have marriage be a legal institution in the first place is out of the assumption that it benefits society at large.  Homosexual couples don't really do that, even if they don't cause any "harm" either.  Otherwise we'd only have common law marriages at most, or just let adults cohabitate unceremoniously.
> 
> There's also a major push to legitimize polyamory or cuckoldry, which the LGBTQ community wholeheartedly embraces.  And even if you were to make the case that marriage could include homosexual couples, it definitely would cheapen or degrade the institution of marriage to include those.
> 
> And if there's anything we could gather from casual observation of current events, the slippery slope isn't as much of a fallacy as we thought it was.


Homosexual males make more than straight males. Why should gay couples essentially pay a bachelor tax or higher taxes? I understand that the institution of marriage is important to you. This was one of  my problems with the campaign.  It focused to much on the whole love is love thing. Focus on the practical and economic side of the issue.  As a homosexual, the last thing I think about are feelings. 

My second issue with the whole let’s cohabitation thing is that marriage comes with legal and economic protections.  You’ll essentially lose everything if your lover dies. 

Why do gay couples need society’s blessing? Wealthy and powerful homosexuals sure don’t. They just exploit loopholes. That’s been that way in Western issue since the 18th century. The whole time talk about marriage as a sentimental institution is very middle class.  Real talk, marriage isn’t sentimental or symbolic. It’s just a tool to build wealth and power.  The upper classes know that.  Hence, marriage for breeding and lovers for pleasure.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (Apr 18, 2022)

SouthernBitchBob said:


> "Marriage" is a legal contract, and creating that contract between two adult strangers doesn't cheapen your own contract.


LMAO. I am surely immune to the whims of society and exist in an isolated bubble!


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 18, 2022)

Kermit Jizz said:


> LMAO. I am surely immune to the whims of society and exist in an isolated bubble!



If you’re wealthy, you can isolate yourself and then some. The marriage rates for the elite is still high, it’s the poor that can’t get married.

As a homosexual male, why is that we’re wasting time with the word or institution. I feel like this would be one of the situations where separate and equal will do.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 18, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Yup, but they are not obligated to attack anyone for speaking up his mind either.
> 
> There are people who want to legalise marriage with animals or children.
> I don't think two gays getting together is harming anyone contrary to a man and a kid or a man and an animal.



They are harming each other, at the very least. Even if we accept the premise that that's okay, the fags do not then have the right to go and change the definition of marriage for society as a whole in an attempt to force people to accept their degenerate lifestyle, which of course is what they went out and did. So fuck them and back into the closet IMO.


Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:


> A large minority of Zoomers identify as LGTBQ. 40%, I think.
> 
> It's not that I support conversion therapy or anything (on the grounds that it doesn't work), but if homosexuality were the result of nurture rather than nature, that's potentially worrying.



Like someone else said, a lot of it is indeed "trending." In particular young white women will claim to be some form of LGBTQBBQ@)*($&!*($EYUHJRFYR*( in order to get onto the victimhood totem pole and escape the shame of just being a regular white person.



SouthernBitchBob said:


> The institution of marriage is "intended" to unify resources and smooth relations between two rival families, too. Does the married gay couple next door ruin your marriage and spoil the family values you've instilled in your kids? All of this "think of the children" bullshit falls apart with the smallest pushes. What if the gay couple doesn't want kids?
> 
> "Marriage" is a legal contract, and creating that contract between two adult strangers doesn't cheapen your own contract. Unless you're a religious nut cloaking your religious nuttery by pretending you have ever-increasingly goofy secular objections, but we've seen *that* for years. Just go back to saying it's against the Will of Jesus, at least that deranged ranting was honest.



Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. Any attempt to force me to say or believe otherwise constitutes an attempt to control my speech and thought, in exactly the same way as trannies forcing you to use their heckin' pronouns. I can't force you not to be a degenerate, but if you must do it, don't try and force people to play along with your fantasies.

And yes, letting fags "marry" has cheapened the concept into now meaning nothing more than two people who want to get some tax breaks and other legal conditions. There is no functional difference between two "married" fags and two unmarried ones who simply co-habitate. They cannot have children thus there is no point in them "marrying" besides to own the straights.



Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:


> There's also a major push to legitimize polyamory or cuckoldry, which the LGBTQ community wholeheartedly embraces. And even if you were to make the case that marriage could include homosexual couples, it definitely would cheapen or degrade the institution of marriage to include those.



And going by the logic of LGBT marriage those are valid and should be included. A dude should be able to have a "marriage" with 4 wives, or a cuck couple including their "bull" in their "marriage contract." It's not hurting you, right?


----------



## HarryHowler (Apr 18, 2022)

Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:


> Whether or not it "hurts" anyone else is irrelevant.
> 
> The institution of marriage is intended to foster the best environment for children to grow up in, and to provide parental role models of both sexes, at the *bare minimum.  *Homosexual couples cannot provide that.
> 
> Marriage is not intended as a means to validate those with disordered sexualities, no matter how benign it may seem.


That's true _in certain countries_, but in many other countries marriage is intended to formally make a woman the property of a man, possibly even just one of several women that he owns. And as has been mentioned already, lots of marriages in Medieval Europe were done just to cement political alliances.

It's true that the traditional Christian marriage was the cornerstone of Western family units for many centuries, but I think more and more people have just stopped giving a fuck about it in recent years - all but one of my five cousins has kids, and of the four that do have them, only one is actually married, with none of the others having any real intention to do so mostly just because a wedding would be too expensive for their liking.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 18, 2022)

HarryHowler said:


> That's true _in certain countries_, but in many other countries marriage is intended to formally make a woman the property of a man, possibly even just one of several women that he owns. And as has been mentioned already, lots of marriages in Medieval Europe were done just to cement political alliances.
> 
> It's true that the traditional Christian marriage was the cornerstone of Western family units for many centuries, but I think more and more people have just stopped giving a fuck about it in recent years - all but one of my five cousins has kids, and of the four that do have them, only one is actually married, with none of the others having any real intention to do so mostly just because a wedding would be too expensive for their liking.



And has that been a good thing or is it a sign of a society in decline?

The cost of a wedding is cope, you can get married for nothing besides the court fee of the marriage license and maybe whatever a celebrant might charge. And even those costs shouldn't be there IMO but if you pretend you somehow couldn't afford even that much then you are making an excuse.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Apr 18, 2022)

HarryHowler said:


> with none of the others having any real intention to do so mostly just because a wedding would be too expensive for their liking.


Yeah no, I will agree with the literal fundamentalist and borderline Totalitarian there, but a marriage at some random church is inexpensive, but idiots always want a "fun" marriage, so they'll try to get themselves a DJ or some lighting designer to make the marriage less boring which will obviously crank up the costs. That's it really, that's the whole story and a good waste of money too.

If someone tells you they don't want a marriage because it's expensive they're lying their asses off.

EDIT:


			https://www.weddingforward.com/church-wedding-prices/
		



			https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage-license/application/fees-cost/
		


If you're really unlucky it could cost like 2'000$ *at most*, but people have gotten married for as cheap as 300$ in the US.


----------



## HarryHowler (Apr 18, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> And has that been a good thing or is it a sign of a society in decline?
> 
> The cost of a wedding is cope, you can get married for nothing besides the court fee of the marriage license and maybe whatever a celebrant might charge. And even those costs shouldn't be there IMO but if you pretend you somehow couldn't afford even that much then you are making an excuse.


Sure, you don't _need_ to spend a lot on a marriage, but the commercialization of the marriage industry, with things like it being "traditional" to spend three months salary on engagement rings and guests practically being encouraged to compete to buy the best, most expensive gift to the happy couple, seems to have combined with the rising cost of living and shaky economy to convince more and more people that marriage falls into the "nice if you can afford it, but not really essential" category. Case in point - of the cousins I mentioned in my earlier post, the only one who is married did so about five years before she had any kids.

So, on the one hand I guess it's kind of a good thing that people are thinking for themselves and refusing to be drawn into this particular consumerist circus, but it's clearly coming at the expense of the traditional family values that the West abided by for hundreds of years.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 18, 2022)

HarryHowler said:


> Sure, you don't _need_ to spend a lot on a marriage, but the commercialization of the marriage industry, with things like it being "traditional" to spend three months salary on engagement rings and guests practically being encouraged to compete to buy the best, most expensive gift to the happy couple, seems to have combined with the rising cost of living and shaky economy to convince more and more people that marriage falls into the "nice if you can afford it, but not really essential" category. Case in point - of the cousins I mentioned in my earlier post, the only one who is married did so about five years before she had any kids.
> 
> So, on the one hand I guess it's kind of a good thing that people are thinking for themselves and refusing to be drawn into this particular consumerist circus, but it's clearly coming at the expense of the traditional family values that the West abided by for hundreds of years.



The consoomerist aspect of marriage is also a relatively modern development, likely helped along by the widespread availability of cheap credit to finance extravagant ceremonies and the like. Anyone who thinks they need to spend five figures or they "can't get married" is just coping though, plain and simple. That's a retarded mindset that should be done away with, if it even really exists at all (to the extent that it does, I think it's just an indicator of the deeper issue that women generally don't want to marry men who don't have money).


----------



## Aero the Alcoholic Bat (Apr 18, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> The consoomerist aspect of marriage is also a relatively modern development, likely helped along by the widespread availability of cheap credit to finance extravagant ceremonies and the like. Anyone who thinks they need to spend five figures or they "can't get married" is just coping though, plain and simple. That's a retarded mindset that should be done away with, if it even really exists at all (to the extent that it does, I think it's just an indicator of the deeper issue that women generally don't want to marry men who don't have money).



A wedding should not cost any more than the average child's birthday party.

Probably less.


----------

