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

[Osmosis Jones]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!
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 indesirables is what spawned Nazism.

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]

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/.

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

>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

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.

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.

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

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."

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 (Yiffed)]

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]

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]

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!

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.

---

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.

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]

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]

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 (Yiffed)]

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?

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.

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.

Loony troons are annoying I admit that much.

That's putting it really lightly.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 (Yiffed)]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.