Was my Intolerance Justified?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2023
- Quick rant about the paradox of tolerance, and my initial thoughts about it.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=3308388
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/stores/professo...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
While there is tolerance to be given... There are also lines you have to draw and hold firm on to claim tolerance. If someone tolerates someone being intolerant to me, I would find that to be intolerant from both of them.
By extension, being intolerant yourself. Nice.
@@PatPatych Yep. I won't tolerate others being intolerant of others based on immutable attributes or things which I don't perceive negatively.
@@Honeybreee Then I really do hope you don't call yourself tolerant, or accepting.
@@PatPatych "wow, you dont tolerate murder, but you DO tolerate being given a cookie??? what a hypocrite!! i guess you're not actually a good guy after all!!"
@@lapotato9140 This is the dumbest, most exadurated false analogy I have ever seen. Let me help you, it should go more like "wow, you don't tolerate harmless jokes but you DO tolerate child mutilation and mass mental health epidemic?"
Speaking as a gay person, I think that bigoted ideias should be challenged and questiined at every chance. That doesn't have to be in a hostile way, but it should be done
Yes. Thank you I’ve been trying to comment that.
as a bisexual person, I think that you should but you shouldn't do it like you are a detective trying to point the logical flaws in their arguement, it should be natural and as normal conversation. Nobody who holds these bigoted beliefs has a degree in debating. it doesn't take a lot to change someone ideas (unless they really are that far gone) let's say someone is a bigot to gay people, they think cock isn't hot and people who suck it are disgusting, you could point out how women do that too, why shouldn't the boys get the same plasure. when speaking with a bigot, if you start a conversation with the idea of "I'm going to challange his views and win with faxs and logic" you already lost.
@@ALE199-itathis I this was the worst argument advice I read on the Internet. To not pursue "faxs and logic" means not to appeal to any rationale. But what even is left then? Like, how can you actually change someones view of something? I would dare to say that we live in a modern enough day for such approach to be almost mandatory to challenge someone's views, unless perhaps the person lacks any the education. Otherwise, what do you appeal to once confronted with a demanding "why?", huh? How exactly do you envision the exchange without presenting and disassembling each others ideas?
Some people are rigid, but that does not mean they are just rigid, for they act on their beliefs and I cannot foresee a change in the former (what you essentially ask for) without first making person doubt the latter.
@@nikita1911001 Their comment wasn't saying not to logically debunk them, the point was not to march into the conversation as "RIGHT you are ENTIRELY WRONG you ABSOLUTE IMBECILE and HERE'S WHY." Hell, the point was not to make it an argument. No wonder it's such bad advice for arguing. They used "faxs and logic" to reference the smug, righteous debate lords who act better-than-you that can make people so defensive, not actual facts and logic. The idea was, "Trying to debunk people like you're in a debate during normal conversation will make people defensive and not be open to the possibility," which is true. When people feel like they're being attacked, they want to defend their points instead of actually listening. Just saying "No, actually, this one study from 2018 says that gay people do deserve rights and you're clearly not well-read on the topic so why do you have an opinion" won't persuade anyone (even if you're right), gently saying "Eh, gay people are fine. Pretty cool, even. They're just living their lives, like you. Why do you disagree?" is more likely to get a better outcome.
Also, starting a reply with "This was the worst argument advice I read on the Internet" is, for example, a very hostile start and will make people defensive rather than changing their opinions too. "I'm not sure I agree on that, don't you think facts and logic are necessary?" is a better way of changing the original commenter's mind (though I think they're right).
TL;DR: Their point was to be natural with it, don't enter the discussion to immediately 'prove them wrong' or 'win the debate', enter the discussion to understand and change their mind. Because those are two different approaches.
ANY ideas should be questioned at every chance. Not just something you perceive as "bigoted".
In psychology, we are taught that the way to change someone's mind is two-fold: the first is exposure to the unknown (your hostility toward this individual (I'm right there with you from a prefrontal cortex perspective)). The second, and way more effective way to change someone's mind is not to show them why their way of thinking is wrong/inconsistent, etc., but to show secondary problems within the spectrum of their perception of reality. For example, I had an English professor who was a Mormon until he realized how crazy it was to think that way, but one of his daughter's still believed. instead of arguing about Mormonism he would point out when a Jew or Muslim or whatever religion was doing the same thing his daughter was doing, therefore mitigating the primary fight and having her look through the lens of the outsider. Then he would say stuff like, "That sure is terrible what they are doing." Eventually (a few years) his daughter snapped out of it.
That’s very interesting. I actually agree and I’m in no way able to word my thoughts in such an eloquent way. So I see it as if you go after primary belief then said person will think you’re attacking them and get defensive, however if you go after secondary or tertiary beliefs then they won’t know you’re changing their mind
In psychology, to change someone's mind is two-fold:
- exposure *of *their unknown
- show secondary problems within their perception
In other words perhaps, is that you got to meat a person at their level and take it from this point.
I don't think the goal should be changeing their minds but instead showing that their point dosnt hold water to observers convincing the person themselves is just a bonus
Yes thank you. I’ve been trying to say this in the comments.
essentially, that's the idea. Kinda sounds nefarious with the way you phrased it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣@@WhiskyWombat556
I have adopted someones idea of tolerance as being a type of social contract. If one party breaks it then the other party is justified with being intolerant. It's the basic tit for tat of game theory.
It's one of those things where you pick your battles. Some people will change with kindness, others will refuse to change no matter what.
Socialism says people change with force, brute force
The paradox of tolerance IMMEDIATELY cleans itself up when we look at it through the lens of social contracts RATHER than something moral or ethical.
We have, as a society, agreed to be tolerant toward the differences of others!
If you actively exercise bigotry... And thus intolerance, then YOU are the one brooking the social contract and the comfort and security of the tolerance of others WILL be denied to you because you have denied it to them!
A tolerant society is only one that, simply speaking, does not allow the spread of intolerance... As that is a thread to the overall societal status quo of tolerance!
You gotta give to get... Otherwise you're just a dickhole expecting people to treat you well whilst you simultaneously treat those same people poorly...
If we take a look at the oldest and most populated cultures, you’ll find that being politely respectful is one of their main tenets, even in the face of disrespect. I know in the west it might seem like that, but in the wider world that isn’t how it works.
@@Redacted_Ruler lol, if we look at the oldest and most populated cultures, until very recently, it has been legally permissible to challenge each other to fights to the death over basic social sleights like calling someone effeminate or asking a woman her age!
In actuality it is NOW that we are living in more peaceful times..
In classical cultures populations were very heavily stratified and respect was only expected from your social inferiors!
Equals often squabbled, fought and betrayed each other over simple and extremely trivial things!
If you live in a SOCIETY, however, no matter where or when, you follow certain social contracts!
Tolerance being PART of that social contract requires reciprocity!
You are either tolerant of someone's differences and treat them well despite them... OR you are not and do not and others are therefore not expected to extend any tolerance to you... As you have not extended any to them!
It has nothing to do with culture... And if you think otherwise you are either an abuser or the abused...
Your statement is simply false across nearly all historical metrics...
This is not a Disney movie.
This is reality.
@@PhilosoShysGameChannel bro I ain’t reading all that
@@Redacted_Ruler the fact that you can't actually read a couple paragraphs of information explains why your earlier statements are so fuckin wrong! XD
That's a problem with you, not us.
Consider going back to school and learning how to read xD
Read a fuckin book and get a functional understanding of reality before you make even more of an ass of yourself with objectively false statements xD
Yeah it isn't like one intolerant person in a sea of tolerant they have there own pockets and hang out and live, work, go to church together in there own intolerant culture. So when a tolerant person comes into that group they are the ones who don't follow the rules ect. It isn't a easy and simple as you make it seem that is ideal situations.
I pretty much agree with you. Tolerance of a bigot is tolerance of bigotry. Tolerance of bigotry is complacency. Being polite to a bigot who doesn't deserve it is a win for the bigots, and a loss for humanity in general. "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" is basically mythology when confronted with bigots, you will never "win" then over by letting them be awful without challenge, and perpetuating that idea does infinitely more harm than good.
the most bigoted people are the people calling others bigots.
@@axeman2638 Only an idiot would think a statement like that makes any kind of sense.
Being combative in an argument is a very fast way to get the other person to not change their mind. I think then passive integration of acceptance will eventually bread these people out.
tolerence of degenerates is intolerable. so works both ways,
@@axeman2638. No, that’s not true either.
I think being intolerant of the intolerant is fine, but if they don't know why you were intolerant to them, you haven't accomplished anything beyond looking like a jerk. It's like punishing or rewarding a kid but not associating the reward/punishment with a behavior; they'll be left to figure it out themselves and may take the wrong lesson away entirely.
I would not compare them with a kid. Go with a dog. 😈
@@vladgdc pretty sure both kids and dogs have the same general intelligence
@@Scruffy-qi3ik Hell no, dogs are way smarter than kids. Have you seen kids?
(Fully agree with the original story)
Looking like a jerk? You mean, being a jerk?
I think making fun of bigots is a perfectly legit and effective way to combat bigotry. It robs them of their power, it turns away potential recruits (who'd want to stick with such losers ?) and provides entertainment. Most importantly - it's not even that hard to make fun of them. I really like Aamon Animations for this reason. This artist takes direct quotes of rightwingers like Ben Shapiro or Denis Prager and puts them in eerie, eldritch context.
intolerance thrives off of tolerance, once the tolerant allow the intolerant to do what they please, the intolerance becomes the norm
yup, this is why the cancer of wokism has spread, we tolerated the mentally ill running society
Being tolerant and being actively disrespectful are two different things. If they don’t change they’re ways they’ll eventually be isolated. If they’re isolated their ideas will eventually be breaded out of the gene pool.
Lowkey one of your best videos this is a really interesting topic
Interesting. I often phrase my stance on the paradox of intolerance as "I will not tolerate intolerance" rather than "I will not tolerate the intolerant".
It's complicated, but it is an extension of what i expect from my friends. If I say something bigoted unintentionally, I hope to be called out by them and I will proceed to try to correct that behavior. Especially when I may not realize that something may be a bigoted belief.
sounds like the secular form of "love the sinner, hate the sin". i approve.
@@sebcw1204 Hahaha! Noy what I intended, but I recall having bigoted beliefs and without people pointing out why, I wouldn't have known that I had to change.
That being said, I did want to change 😅.
Consider this remarkable individual, who has donated millions to charity and has volunteered unselfishly in Hospitals. Someone who has improved the standard of care on Children's Wards and in Psychiatric Hospitals. Trusted so much by Hospital Management, that he is given his own set of keys to come and go as he pleases. Marathons run, huge sums raised. He visits schools and gives free rides in his Rolls to delighted children. Adored by millions, Knighted by the Queen, friends with Prince Charles and well regarded by the Royal Family and influential Politicians for decades... Look at that sign up ahead. You have just crossed over into the Jimmy Savile Zone.
We tolerate that what we see as good. So much so, for Decades, victims who came forward against Savile were shunned and turned away by the public and the police.
I will not tolerate racism in any form, for there is much more evil lurking behind these ideas.
You know for fact that that person is an intolerant bigot. Being tolerant toward him only reinforce his intolerance, and make you complice of his intolerance toward others. So, you where justified.
There are people who have the energy to help someone change their mind. But it aint me
Im exhausted of my entire existance being questioned. Im tired of people wanting me to be _eradicated_ merely because I am queer.
We didnt get rights by being nice. We got rights by _throwing a brick through a window_
I think we need to challenge intolerance, but as far as possible we need to do it politely, and try to make clear that if they repent of their intolerance thay can be welcomed into polite society.
So, not just cussing people out (though that could be necessary on occasion).
I've thought about this exact same question for a while now. The majority of the time, especially on online conversations which anyone can see (Like comment sections or Discord), I am normally pretty calm in conversations with bigots. I will always try to prove my point, often backed up with statistics and I will poke holes in there argument and how it's usually completely made up. I know if I get angry they are less likely to actually listen and it just becomes less about facts and more about insults. I'm also trying to change the view of the other people reading the comments, I know if I get really angry or just start insulting them, other people reading the comments may potentially see me as the bad guy.
In online conversation in particular but also in group settings, it's important to consider both the person you're responding to and your audience.
Often, online especially, the bigot is not going to change their mind no matter how rational you are.
But others might, where they wouldn't if you weren't calm and objective.
@@stevewithaq Exactly my point. Often when bigots lie to me online (Like make up statistics, or misquote them), I'll point it out and I'll tell them 'I know I can't change your view, but you directly lied about x statistic - I hope that other people reading this thread see how you are just lying to project your view'
Thinking of the audience is exactly how I maintain calm in situations like that. I try to go into an online confrontation with the assumption that the person I'm confronting probably won't change, but maybe people reading, who are less likely to feel personally attacked, will be inspired to reconsider a bigoted view.
Maintaining calm (not cursing, using slurs, generally being insulting, or even being intentionally condescending) can be difficult but is _so_ important in confrontations like that, as it shows confidence, maturity, and thoughtfulness.
you're asking 2 questions: Should you be tolerant to intolerant? Answer is no IMO. And: How do you deprogram someone from bigotry? I would say the line is when they aren't talking about their bigoted opinions - then you can be nice to them. Or at least not rude. But when they would start spewing their bigotry - then counter immediately.
But to deprogram you would have to be atleast somewhat tolerant, because if you are just a rude cunt at every interaction like mr stickman over here then there will never be that opportunity for the bigot to cross that bridge
He is insane, and his viewers who are agreeing whole heartedly are equally complacent.
For example. Put yourself in PS' shoes for the duration of this comment to get what I'm saying. I know you don't necessarily hold his views, but for the sake of understanding what I'm saying, just pretend that you do.
What is the goal of your ideals on a deeper level? You have lost sight of that.
"I hate people who disapprove of being trans."
< "I want to defend trans men and women"
< "I want to let people be what they want."
< "I want to let people do what they want to be happier."
< "I want people to be happier."
< "I want to be happy."
You have mistaken your own philosophy, and are sacrificing the want for people in general to be happy in favor of specific people being happy over others.
If you happen to know someone believes something different to you, but hasn't done anything wrong, then they are fundamentally innocent till they've actually done something.
You were just rude to someone for no reason at all. Thus making the world a little more hostile. But it wasn't in exchange for anything. Nothing was *gained,* only *lost.*
If you don't want to be friends with someone because of something they believe that erks you so much, then you just shouldn't interact, since that is the best course of action for you. If you are *forced* into a situation where you must interact, then you simply don't owe that person anything anyway. It's a foreign body. But looking at countries doing exactly this on a national level, hostility brews over into war. Look at Sweden. Is it lovey dovey with every country, friend or foe? No. Is it openly hostile against any country that can pose a threat to it??? NO. Because then it'd be at war over nothing.
You didn't even give so much as an _explanation_ for your hostility of all things. All this mind set of not tolerating those who are intolerant _to a friendly party_ accomplishes is adding chaos and hostility into the bigger system.
It does not take actions in your favor, nor friendly party favor... it does not add truth nor knowledge, to any party involved... it only shows you want you want to see, because then that intolerant party is more hostile than before as response to your hostility regarding the subject... and it distances the intolerant party from your view, who has their own social network connections, and views you as the intolerant one.
Your argument falls apart just by reversing the rolls ffs.
If for example, from someone who thinks that transphobic promotion as bad, then you defending it is being intolerant of the greater good. And by your logic, you should not tolerate someone who is intolerant. In other words, this someone would be openly rude and insulting to you because they know that you are intolerant to the greater good. You don't know this. And even if you did, it would only clarify that you two are on bad terms. Which i guess is better than nothing at least. NOW, let’s view this from another stand point. To tolerate the intolerant _of a friendly party._ Take for example of that trans disagreer has a friend, a true neutral party. Let’s say this is a guy from a remote village of a far away foreign country who has no concept of what a trans person is, nor the general political landscape at all. He has no opinion on the matter itself. If you are rude to his friend, he will become hateful of you and your friendly parties, and may even get invested in the subject to better align with his friend's views, which in this case you would be against.
If that neutral friend just remained tolerant if you, not your friendly parties, but YOU, then he could resign his decision for later after learning more on the matter from BOTH of you... which creates a healthy discourse of debate, and finding out how to decide in things and come to an agreed conclusion, whatever that may be. He might not even agree with either of you, but it remained civil and healthy.
The idea to never tolerate the intolerant... just pits two sides against each other in increasing levels of hostility that cuts off communication and accomplishes nothing.
And the udea that you shouldn't be tolerant of that... because in a world of tolerant people who tolerate the intolerant, the intolerant will eventually rule..... is subjective and depends on WHO is speaking. The other side can say the exact same thing to justify being more *openly hateful,& wrather than _quietly discontent._ You are creating the very villain you want to fight.
Because if you think about what we're talking about here physically and practically... what we're really talking about is radicalism. Not effective problem solving. It is based in emotion, not an attempt to accomplish what you want to make happen.
If your enemy adopts this same outlook, then their conclusion would be the same as yours. "To combat my enemy, i must become _more_ radical and intolerant of them. Because if *_I_* become tolerant of them, they will win. In a system that favors radicalism, the most radical wins. I. MUST. one up them at all cost!" which as I've said before, disobeys your more fundamental motivation of "I want people to be happy." and "I want to be happy." in favor of a warped, crippled, and lensed view of "I want *some* people to be happy.". This betrayal of self motivation leads to never truly accomplishing it, because it doesn't actually aid in fulfilling the deeper motivation it's supposed to be based on.
This is my rebuttal to Mr stick.
I understand your frustration with people who hold these ideals. I flame them as hard as I can when it's appropriate, i.e., matching their flame level. I usually start out trying to ask them to justify their position and go from there. I support what you have done and I love your content.
What you describe here sounds pretty much like Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance from a personal perspective. So, yeah, that works. In order to reduce intolerance of the first degree (i.e. based on rejection of that which is foreign or alien) intolerance of the second degree (i.e. based on rejection of that which is intolerant and dangerous) is pretty much a necessity.
Be rude all you want. Mere insult/disagreement does not cross the line. That is intolerance that should be tolerated.
The point made by Popper's formulation of the paradox is that we should be careful to limit our own intolerance to situations where rational argument is prohibited, where debate is silenced, or where direct appeals to the "fist or the pistol" are made.
There's a quote I can't seem to source... something like: `'I love everybody, I just don't like everybody.`'
One can be respectful towards people, while not holding respect for their ideas. It's often hard to do internally, and sometimes even harder for our interlocutor to tell that difference - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
But when one actively discriminates against human rights, and moreso, does it out of willlful ignorance - lines do blur.
Edit: it's also problematic when people build their identities around a certain idea - makes it harder to question the idea without the person getting defensive.
We need allies like you who will challenge bigots when they say things they will not say in front of us.
I dabble in philosophy, yet even as a pansexual person, this is a very difficult question. I don't think it has one answer.
People vary, as will their response to tolerance vs intolerance. It also depends on the scenario.
In a debate, it's best not to attack them, but try to keep it peaceful, even if they don't. Psychologically communicate that you aren't a threat, just worried.
If they are actively harassing an LGBT member or an ally, (verbally or physically), that's a very different story. If they can't communicate without violence, they are strictly NOT welcome, they don't deserve respect until they are stable.
If the conversation doesn't even mention LGBTQ, you have choices. You could refuse to be in the same room, avoiding them and giving your reasons for doing so.
But if you don't want them in the way of you and your friends, just ignore them. Personally, If it's online, I'd change my PFP to something rainbow, just for a hint hint, nudge nudge.
I've always believed there's no point to angry arguments. as fun I find them, it's counterproductive.
Spike Milligan (historic English anarchical comedian) was once asked by someone; “ Why did you take an instant dislike to me?”
He answered “It saves time!”
People who can't respect others as people don't deserve any respect.
You don't have to be friendly. But you can be better than them and be polite.
you got it this is the point of god. christians dont hate gay people i wish for them to realise that they are point one waisting time not adding valuable human life into the mix and desroying thier own familytrees future. point 2 men and women work different if a hot women at the bar approached me like a man we would have crazy monkey sex and never see each other again. just like you see massive gay sex parties. and this i dont belive anybody is happy in. sin brings more sin
You *can* swing from the chandelier. The question isn't what you *can* do, but what you should. And "be better" assumes that polite is always the better thing, thus begging the question.
What is a woman?
Personally I think it’s pretty nuanced. The paradox of intolerance can be seen through a different lens. a contract of tolerance, just like how beating an assailant is considered self defence, since that assailant has breached their part by attempting to harm you, you have the right to harm them. By breaching the contract, they are not protected from the contract. By being a bigot, they get treated like a bigot.
Trying to change someone's mind by being nice may work half the time, since there’s a possibility a bigot can use and abuse your friendly approach. They MIGHT just be ignorant and learn that the bullshit they were taught is wrong by your example, but since we can’t tell who is ignorant and who is willingly ignorant and hateful. This doesn’t work reliably
So i think the best way to deal with it, is call them out and treat them like shit when they actively commit it. And treat them like shit HARD.
Problem with treating them like shit when they’re not doing anything, is that they and other people might not connect the two dots, but calling them out when they're being an ass, then people might realize
I think there's a difference between challenging an idea vs being intolerant of them.
You can challenge ideas in a respectful manner, just like you can tell everyone you disagree with to piss off.
I tend to do the former.
Heck, I used to be homophobic when I was young,
What changed me was realizing It was stupid to judge people over my own preferences because it's arbitrary.
Imagine someone calling you an idiot for wearing a red shirt.
it makes no sense.
It's fine to try and calmly explain to people about their intolerance
But once they refuse to understand ( or purposely refuse to care about understanding ) , nah , im gonna be intolerant to you
Some people will change , and refuse to change , so your only choice really , is to either ignore , or troll
Im so glad i lived long enough to see this.
Professor Stick, at 64, I tend to say what I want, lol. I agree that the one characteristic, helps you 'guess' their views on many other topics. I would say, you're justified in ignoring or being 'short, brusque?' with one you know is a bigot. And for sure laying into them, if they say something bigoted. I feel most bigotry is ignorance, so educating them, even roughly, might help. But, you have yourself to protect, too. High intelligence can make it much harder to tolerate intolerance!👍💝💙🥰✌
Good thoughts 👍
I read (in a meme) that the solution to the intolerance paradox is not to see tolerance as a moral standard but instead a social contract. Those not abiding by the terms of the contract are not covered by it.
I think all of us, including I, need to implement the golden rule: Treat others how you wanna be treated. I think you are right for speaking up against people who are not following the golden rule.
1) There is no Paradox of Intolerance. Tolerance is a social contract and those who violate it are not covered by it.
2) It is no particular individual's responsibility to attempt to change minds. Those why try hardest are often worst at it, because they presuppose bigotry and hate is based on lack of information or misinformation, and that if they give a bigot the data they will change their mind. That is quite simply not how it works.
One other note:
Obviously one can't use the intolerance of others as an excuse to do unethical things - harm them or violate Human Rights.
That said: Right to Free Speech is a *very* specific thing - it forbids the Glvernment from making laws regarding freedom of speech.
Nobody has attempted to make such laws, and the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that there is a distiction between direct incitement to violence and hate speech (slurs, for instance) and that hate speech is covered as free speech - so we have precedents that no such law *can* be established.
"Cancel Culture" in the context that you are talking about is something completely different. It is the natural consequence of individuals or groups violating the Terms of Service of various platforms. Nothing at all to do with passing laws. Those TOS are there to insure a safe and pleasant experience for users because platforms are more profitable if more people use them more often - and hate speech quells engagement.
If I make a Discord server and say "you can talk about anything, but the word 'wombat' will get you banned", and someone posts something containing that word and gets banned, that is not a violation of Free Speech, it is not cancel culture - they can go make their own server and have a rule "every post must include the word 'wombat'" if they want.
You're already thinking "ah but that's how you end up with echo chambers".
Yes.
You know what one of the most effective ways to get people to eliminate bad ideas is?
Put them in a room with people who share their bad ideas and let them hear how they sound to others.
Won't work with everyone - nothing will work with some people - but I've seen near-Fash backtrack through Right Libertarian and end up (so far) at NeoLib. Still conservative, but a lot better than where they were.
Final point: every accusation from the Right is an admission.
They are organized - they engage in systematic cancel culture constantly. There is very little actual organized attempt to cancel from the Left. Wr mostly form small ad hoc groups for a specific purpose then disperse. We mostly just celebrate when a toxic assclown gets can no longer spew hate outside of their echo chamber.
Please don't confuse the human right of freedom speech with the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. They are different things.
The 1st amendment limits governement action.
However, the human right is to be protected universally, from all threats, governmental or civil.
LMFAO no the right learned cancel culture from the deranged leftoid loons, you just mad we started to play by the rules you made. and I'm enjoying the show.
Unless they wear off my patience, I'm trying to be polite in these situations.
OMG I haven't used the term "flamed" for years... I used to do it to my MP until be blocked me on social media!
LGBT rights do matter, but there are some areas think it steps beyond right to preferencial treatment. On the whole I believe treating others how you wish to be treated, respect for our fellow human beings
I think the idea of "a good person but they're bigoted" is often misunderstood.
Because yeah other than this one crappy thing they're good but that just makes them a nice person. I've met many "nice" people that ended up being bigots. If a person is really great otherwise but then they're really racist when someone brings up minorities are they really a good person? If they're only a good person around people who don't fall into the groups that they hate them that means they aren't a good person. They just haven't been in a position where they would show their true selves.
There's such things as horrible people with good attributes here and there. Don't get that mixed up with a good person with a few blemishes. Especially if those "blemishes" are something like bigotry.
I was anti-gay up until my late teens and a lil till I was 22. Of course... this was until I realized I was gay. lol.
If we are constantly hostile towards those who don’t hold every value we do then we become fenced in. If you don't care for the person then you don't have to be friendly towards them. The fastest way to change a persons mind is for them to meet someone of the role they are bigoted towards, which you are probably not.
I don't think it matters in the idea of grtting them to agree with you.
Back when I was 13 my Grandma was talking about petitioning her local MP about the new age of consent laws. All I remember from the conversation was grandma explaining how the MP had replied including something about having to respect their rights and her finishing with "well we have rights too!" And everyone was nodding in agreement. That included my parents (I wasn't out, so they had no reason to think it important to do otherwise)
I'm 35 now and that is still stuck firmly in my mind as a core memory of when I first found out my entire family hated who I was. As an adult I recognise that some of them might have just been respectfully silent, just tolerating the rant but not believing any of it. And I just don't care, they were tolerant of her intolerance which means they enabled it and ostensibly shared it.
Yeah, that whole "I'm not really a bigot. I'm just religious so it's okay." thing bugs me too. I could see a person who was bigoted against some race changing their mind but the LGBT+ bigots would have to change their religion first. They're preached at every Sunday about this stuff.
Serious question. What is cancel culture? Is it when some company gets rid of some old fashioned and outdated thing al la Aunt Jemima? Is it mostly a Twitter thing where everyone gangs up on the bad person of the week? How bad do they have to be? I remember hearing about some woman who was fired from Disney for saying the N word and yeah. Of course. That's nothing new. Was she cancelled? I'd probably fire her too if I was a Disney exec. When is it bad and affect you? Aunt Jemima doesn't affect you. Is there an example of cancel culture that should make me concerned or make me at least disagree if nothing else?
In times like these I turn to the advice of the They Might Be Giants song _Your Racist Friend._
Tolerance of intolerance is intolerant itself
This is backwards logic.
@@PatPatych it's the only way to remain logically consistent
@@kalebk9595 Are you actually speaking about logic? Tolerance is tolerance. If you're being intolerance of intolerance, you don't suddenly become tolerant. However, if you tolerate intolerance, you remain tolerant. Because it doesn't matter what you tolerate.
My life motto is "Keep calm and sei ka Oaschloch" and that goes for everybody
A person who is nice to you but not nice to the waiter is not a nice person.
Being rude to a bigot may or may not change their mind, but being nice to them _definitely_ won't.
If you are interested in spending the time and effort to change that person's mind, yeah - being rude won't help, but it is not your job to change everyone's or _anyone's_ mind. You are not obliged to tolerate their presence.
You can talk to them directly - like, "fuck off, bigot", or ignore them and talk to the group, "Hey who invited the homophobe? Do we have room for an asshole like that?" And no - I don't care how nice your racist (or sexist or transphobic or homophobic or whatever) friend is being _right_ _now_ . Because such behavior only exists so much as we tolerate it.
The consequences of tolerating someone on the chance they might change their ways is not worth the consequences of their actions and the hurt they cause during their bigoted exchanges. I believe it is helpful to make the distinction between the action and the person. A bigoted action is intolerable. People deserve the dignity of changing their ways and without the opportunity to do so will not consider a different point of view. It is a difficult situation and I dont begrudge your response to Person A.
See as you find. All to often we prejudge on expectations.
Some years ago I managed a social assistance organisation. When the mother of one of our clients died a coworker and I attended her funeral with the client. The eulogy spoke highly of his mother and her many years voluntary work in a local organisation. As we drove back to the office my coworker started a character assassination of the dead woman, whom she only knew from a ten minute eulogy. The coworker was scathing of what were imagined character faults. I soon had enough and heatedly told her that she had no right to speak like this of somebody she had never met, and in a way that she would never speak in front of our client. The next week (she worked only one day per week with us) she almost apologised by saying 'I've thought through what you said and agree that I have a low tolerance for bigots.' So, once more she disparaged our client's mother without cause and continued blind to her own misplaced bigotry. And I was left, as the manager of the program, with that same question, 'How far do I tolerate the intolerance of this person?'
I think it's important to have tolerance, especially outside this discourse in which they're bigoted. Being rude to someone is only going to cause them to dig in deeper; especially in this polarized world, they're just going to feel vindicated as the suffering martyr. Probably more important, though, is that the undecided or the "both sides" people - the ones who actually _can_ still be influenced - will generally react badly to you being hostile, especially "out of the blue". For "both sides" people, they generally put feelings over facts, and so are highly influenced by how something is phrased, and especially how someone reacts on unrelated topics. If you are hostile, they are less likely to side with you regardless of the strength of your argument, and being hostile outside the specific topic could make them view you as "unreasonable".
I'm not saying that we must have infinite patience with them, obviously, nor is there any necessity to be friends with them - I personally would give the cold shoulder to a bigot like that - but maintaining at least chilly civility in mixed company can be better at not giving them more righteous certitude, and not pushing the undecideds away.
You know, I want to preface this by saying I'm somewhere between an atheist, an agnostic, and a deist. That said I think that it is important keep in mind a quote attributed to Gandhi, an eye for an eye leaves the world blind and another quote I can attribute to many religious people and that is to hate the sin and not the sinner. I would love to say I have an easy time with this myself, but I do not. The idea of me using quotes and sayings from religious people demonstrates the point that I was originally trying to say. I don't remember where I was going with this, but most people aren't their flaws.
The simple version is I agree. Have a nice day
Silence is acceptance.
I feel that in that social situation that you were in, I would have acted nice and respectful until I at least learn enough about him to determine who he is as a person.
If he brought up those extremely contravercial topics, then he should expect an open discussion for others to debate or challenge his beliefs. That's where I draw the line anyway.
Much agree.
Tolerance and intolerance are two sides of the same coin that not only affect each other in both positives as negatives but are needed to keep each other in check.
Having too much tolerance justifices anything happening and having too much tolerance justifies the same thing in a dictatorship.
You need a mix of both, just 1 person or a few doesnt do much overall, but humans are social creatures of which a few or even one can affect the mindset of others wether their aware of it or not.
You dont have to tolerate the intolerant regardless if their part of your group or not, intolerance against those who hate and inflict violence wether directly or indirectly is needed for society to not turn into a dystopia, even if those who cause hate and violence are part of your own group.
Especially if their part of your own group, you need to gatekeep the behaviour of those who are part of your group for if you dont do that you agree with their actions which may or may not be negative.
Just because their part of your group doesnt mean that their free to do as they please, the group as a whole is responcible for the behaviour of their members and as such are equal to blame for it.
Treat bigots as they treat others
I try not to be intolerant to intolerant people, as long as the conversation is on something else. Then if the conversation changes onto something we disagree on, they are more likely to hear me out! I might not change their mind, but I might plant some seeds that works down the line.
Personally I'd say being tolerant is depending on the severity of the intolerance if that makes sense. It's a tricky topic
I think it comes down to what you are looking to accomplish when interacting with the bigot.
If you are attempting to change their mind, by all means be polite and understanding. If not, there is no reason to treat them with anything other than utter contempt.
There's a difference between being intolerant towards harmful beliefs and being cruel or rude. You can correct people when it's necessary, and you can be nice when necessary. If all people see is you being rude that's all you'll be in their eyes. If you show them that those they're ignorant of aren't actually bad people, while still correcting their bull you can still win them over. With that said there is a limit and sometimes you just have to get mean with people. If someone's actively bullying someone else it's ok to go off on them. You can be kind AND be right at the same time. It is possible. Don't be rude in everyday conversation, but when they act out call it out and don't let them make excuses. That's how you make real changes in society.
Without knowing the exact details of the exchange, I'll simply say that being short and dismissive isn't unfair, but in itself is too vague a "punishment" to ever achieve anything.
By which I mean that openly or subtly bigoted statements, called out and shamed immediately and followed by dismissiveness, is more likely to show results than merely being dismissive at all times, no exceptions.
It's just making clear what the unacceptable behavior is, the same as with training any non-human animal.
I'm queer with a lot of queerphobic relatives, who I unfortunately still have to interact with, I don't have tolerance for bigots who I will never see again, I don't talk to them as they have no right to interact with me. But my family members are people I'm forced to be around sometimes, and being intolerant of them will put me in danger (I'm not out to them). So I think being intolerant is fine as long as it doesn't put you or other people in danger.
If you knew someone before, they were great and funny and cool, but then you hear them say something homophobic or something. That ends the positive interactions, they're intolerant, you don't have to be around them. You don't owe anyone your time.
It’s nice to see an open, self-relating video like this. You’re conceal culture was interesting to me, as I don’t think cancel culture removes or damages a person’s free speech. We’re all free to say what they want, but we’re not free from the consequences of what we say. If a person says some horrible sh*t and everyone in the world except their personal following hates them for it, they still have a platform and an audience. For someone to be canceled, you need to say or do something so crazy that your own audience leaves you over it. And I, personally, don’t have an issue with deplatforming people at that point. There’s no instance where a person has cultivated a reasonable audience and then gets canceled for saying/doing something reasonable.
Edit: Wow, this turned out long. TLDR, I’m a person on the internet who disagrees with you. Shock and horror.
Back in high school I did a presentation on a black musician named Daryl Davis. His hobby was becoming friends with members of the kkk and getting them out of it. Lightning in a bottle, probably won't happen too much. This video's still spitting.
Oh it's quite simple actually. If you won't punch me in the face then I have no reason to punch you in the face.
Now if someone is saying that they want me to get punched in the face-not necessarily be the one that punches me in the face-I'd be very happy to tell them to fuck off if they don't want to get punched in the face
Oh and as far as I'm concerned, there's some groups that could stand to get some fist knuckles for saying that they want to punch people in the face
Yeah, this is a tough one. There really is no 'one answer fits all' here. You can be intolerant of one of their ideology without having to be intolerant of their entire being, but as you say, along with that specific intolerance there's most likely other aspects that you wouldn't agree with either. Only by getting to know the person would you be able to discern that. However, by knowing that one aspect that might be enough for you to decide that you don't want to get to know them more. That is your choice as well.
It's always kind of weird when apologetics will defend that type of bigotry and say "Well it's their opinion..." and things like that. They tend to forget that you ALSO have an opinion. You have that choice to not want anything to do with them.
Intolerance just makes people angry and makes them hate another side
You can be tolerant of bigots, as long as they're not currently displaying their bigotry for all to see. The moment they behave in a bigoted way, that's when my tolerance of them reaches its limit.
and I'll let you know a secret, we don't care, I mean most of us could care less, we've written you off as a mental case, we're getting sick n tired of your deranged perpetual attacks, you stay in your safe space and bubble wrapp we'll enjoy the real world
@@Refertech101
Grow up, you crap stain!
Edit: *SNUFF IT,* censorTube!
When i hear ally i go bye bye
I was once "intolerant" a a young adult. People did not change my mind by treating my bigoted, outdated ideas as valid, which would have been the last thing my impressionable mind needed at that time. My new friends led by example, treating each other with respect and kindness, and made it clear that was the kind of behavior they expected in their community. Meanwhile, my old friends continued to be cruel and nasty to people they found too different for their tastes, despite marketing themselves as loving and forgiving people. Eventually, the contrast and the cognitive dissonance were enough to bring me around to a better way of thinking. In short, firm boundaries are just as important as high ideals.
There's a story about an owner of a punk rock bar and a few nazis came in. They didn't cause any problem, but they were kicked out anyway. The owner was asked about it and said something to the effect of, "If you're okay with serving these Nazis because they're not causing any problems, they invite their friends and all of a sudden you're a Nazi bar." Tangentially related, but I think it is related to your being accepting to bigoted beliefs
I personally believe there are two types of intolerant people. Those who are simply ignorant, and those who want to silence the disempowered. If your goal when joining the community is to push people out and put your people in, you are the latter, and thus deserve to be removed from the space.
Summary: Person A believes something I consider wrong therefore I can be rude and dismissive towards their entire person. And that’s how you create a more tolerant society.
My thoughts are if I know someone who exhibits bigoted behaviors I'll call them out on it as it happens, but I won't try and be a asshole myself when they're not. I'd rather have the chance of converting the 1 in 10 then 0 in 10. If they're someone I can't stand otherwise then I'll avoid them.
I think it depends on the person and the situation. I personally wouldn’t be rude to someone who was a bigot. If they say or do something bigoted, I may try to reason with that person. If that doesn’t seem to make an impact, then I would probably ignore them and not go out of my way to be nice. Having said that, I do try to always be kind. As a queer person, I have to tread lightly sometimes, especially if I feel unsafe. I personally think that being kind is generally the best path, but I recognize there may be situations when being rude could be more effective.
As someone who is gay. I don't have any issues with these people speaking their minds. They can be hateful or bigoted. its their right to express those feelings in a fair and just way. and while I disagree with them. Im not going to look down apon or judge their entire character based on said single opinion. OP, I think being openly hostile towards the individual purely based on a single opinion they hold is short sighted and immature. the correct way of handling it is not bringing the topic up or instigating an altercation until the person in question does. were all adults here (I hope) we should act like it.
Edit: ahhh I watched the rest of the video now. I still think being mature and non combative is the better way to go about it
There is tolerance but tolerance is not infinite, when people cross the line over and over and over again, sometimes you kinda have to give them a hard lesson "fuck around and find out"
I agree completely that we can't be nice to every bigot because they might change their minds... and I used to be one of said very religious people who was pretty bigoted.
Now, I have since left the Church, and with it those bigoted positions, and am now proud to be an ally to my LGBTQ friends.
Sadly, as you stated, for every one person who changes and becomes an ally, there are probably a few who may never change. So I do agree with not extending the "benefit of the doubt" that they may be good people otherwise.
100% they should be called out when they express any bigoted positions, and shouldn't be shown special cordiality, just because they may have some good traits 🤔
My concern: bigots are using this attitude against us, and that is why we are being bigoted in the first place.
The idea that "you could be intolerant to others on some basis" is reason why all kinds of bigotry exist, with that basis usually being public opinion or religion. So responding with intolerance doesn't address the fundamental problem, and counterproductive.
But i don't have answer to what we should do, so i think "intolerance against the intolerant" is good enough.
You can call out people that you don't agree with but it probably won't do much. They will still have their opinion
changing an opinion is rarely something that happens from one day to another. Everytime an opinion is challenged it leaves a dent.
My general approach is to be kind and polite and tolerant up until the point bigotry and intolerance comes into the equation. Then I put it down like a starving lion does a weak gazelle
While I completely understand the way you acted, i think it's important not to essentialise character traits like intolerance for a couple of reasons
1. If he wasn't being intolerant during your interaction neither he nor any neutral observers will understand why you treated him differently.
2. If we view someone expressing intolerant ideas as "an intolerant person" then the problem becomes the person, rather than the idea.
I would try and challenge intolerant ideas but if possible leave room for a person to grow - one of the ways in which people get radicalised into having multiple bigotries is that they become isolated from decent people and supported by a community of fellow bigots but if people can learn to let go of their bad ideas from folks who will challenge them without condemning, there's always the hope that they can grow out of it.
Of course there's always a line and it's up to you to decide when it's been crossed.
Bigotry is a system and a quote i always remember (not sure who said it) "Be kind to people, be ruthless to systems"
Intolerant people are often not intolerant because they're bad, but because they were raised that way and use it as emotional support. One way to help them as people to get out of the "thought trap" they're in is to show that LGBTQ++ people, athiests, biologists, minorities, etc. aren't evil by being nice. At least that's what I think, 'cause you wouldn't change your mind when a rando tells you that you're wrong, without taking you seriously!
The paradox of intolerance is easily solved with more grey thinking... it's about NET tolerance, you can permit smaller intolerances to prevent larger ones.
Well Prof Stick, I think that intolerance should be meet with intolerance done in a tolerant manner. Also, I think that if someone who has shown intolerance in other situations, but not in the current situation, should be shown tolerance while they are tolerant. This way you are giving positive feedback on their tolerant behaviour.
I have some simple rules in engaging with intolerance.
Engage the ideology first, not the individual. This help prevent 'othering' and downplays pariah syndromes.
If a person feels 'attacked' personally, this often results in inset defensive posturing and holding ones ground. This can also lead to, if enough within that persons inner circle reacting negatively to them on a personal leval, seeking joined defensive communities believing in the same bullshit.
This fallback into a more insular echo chamber often radicalizes an individual to discount those in the friend group to consider those in the extreme as more alligned with there personage.
Try and bring up personal relevence when it comes to the issue in dispute.
Most issues that seem to divide us are very rarely personal, just anecdotes from those in either side of the issue. If we help examine the attributes of the arguement presented by asking about personal accounts, in this case lgbt+ rights or 'transgressions' we can help the person to see how little the counter arguement actually effects them or those they care about.
Have you had a child, friend, family member or community effected by this expression of gender?
This will be difficult sometimes as often statistics or false equivocation will be presented as evidence.
Do not refute claims with statistics.
Yes the use of statisical analysis is a very correct and powerful tool in some circumstances.
It very rarely is useful in individual dialogue or discussion.
It is rational, but not productive. Ask questions, seek their answers and examine those arguements, not the scientific consensus, because the is shill evidence (in most minds on this topic), you need to engage emotionally when dealing personally with bigots, because they are not coming from a analytical interpretation of the facts, but from an emotional one.
Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Tim Poole, Matt Walsh etal may say that facts don't care about your feelings, but how you feel about facts determines you ability to change your own mind.
Don't tolerate bigoted ideas, attack those ideologies when they are present.
Discuss the issue and make it personal without attacking that person.
Give counter arguements based upon the feelings that person has.
Do not rely on logic, humans are often not logical.
Offer a space where they can question their beliefs without feeling censored.
And most of all, within reason, offer compassion.
Being indoctrinated into a belief by your religion, your government, your family...
Yes there is choice of thought, but if you fail to welcome someone into a new way of thinking by attacking the, and not the ideological adherence they are trapped in...
They may feel safer falling back into their in group,
And the echo chamber will be who they listen too.
Next time someone asks why they think something about an issue, the defense of that ideology will be even stronger.
The paradox of tolerance is largely solved when you think of it as a social contract.
...or if you bother to read the rest of Popper's response to it. Most people only read the first few lines...instead of the part where he says where the line should be drawn.
Man stick is an expert at immaturity
If someone is the kind of person who thinks that I don't deserve to exist because of who I am, then fuck em, plain and simple. I am under no obligation to be polite to a person like that in any circumstances. The nicest thing they can expect to hear from me is telling them to piss off.
Personally, I think the line should be somewhere like (a) bigotry displayed directly in the context I am going to be showing my reaction in, or else something along the lines of, say, two or more personal encounters where I witness that bigotry and either I, or someone else, openly reject that bigotry - so, a repeat offender: at that point, I can assume that protesting alone won't do much, and rejecting the person as a whole is justified.
Now, it being justified may not be the same as it being a good idea. For example, it changes how *I* am perceived; if I want to influence people, it is critical I am not myself perceived as bigoted. So consider that part of things. I can still reject the bigotry, whenever it actually shows up, in a mostly polite manner. That is, of course, not the only option - just something to consider before I decide what is the best option in this particular case.
And yes, I'm not always being calm enough in such a situation to make the best decision. It is what it is.
Personally I don’t think I’m going track down the bigots and scream at them. But if they are bigots in front of me or in my social media circle. Then it’s on
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.
I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." Neville Chamberlain.
Yeah, nah. Ideas will not evolve without selection eliminating the weak and old.
Also, theirs is a bit of a bad faith argument that allows them to remain in their comfort zone and not confront issues that have become entrenched.
Bad ideas need pushback. Otherwise you just get stuck in your bubble and don't ever know better
If you ever want anybody who opposes your opinion to respect you sufficiently to consider yours, you have to show them a minimum of respect. That does NOT mean that you have to tolerate their opinion. You should present your arguments without holding back, but you should strive to stay respectful while doing it. Remember, you teach more by example as by argument. So by acting the way you did, you invite people to act the same way against anybody who may hold a belief they consider untenable.
Not correcting someone's grammar is different than not saying anything about bigotry, for example.
So long as the bigotry is not hearsay you are justified in treating the person accordingly (personally I would be content with direct experience, indirect experience in the form of the personal experience of someone I trust, or to a lesser extent recorded evidence in the form of audio/video). One should of course make clear why the person has earned this uncharitable social standing (negative social pressure loses its value if the punished do not understand what behavior is being punished).
And just to be clear, "going along to get along" can sometimes be socially convenient- but it lets scummy people off the hook, and passively endorses behavior that should be penalized.