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