[ SECRET POST #3045 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3045 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 028 secrets from Secret Submission Post #435.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ill_omened]

Tolerance by definition includes intolerance of intolerance.

Sorry that's too difficult to comprehend, go have a good pray about it.

[(Anonymous)]

That's either a banal platitude or a horrible fucking argument or both

I mean, it's true in as far as it goes, but my problem is that just leaving it like that begs the question entirely: what kinds of intolerance should not be tolerated? what kinds of tolerance are good? and that's literally the central, difficult question here. why is being gay good and something to be tolerated? why is objecting to gay marriage bad and something not to be tolerated? you need to do something that actually has reference to the content here. at the point where you're actually trying to rule out certain kinds of speech, which is what we're trying to do here, you need to have reference to some deeper standard which is able to justify that position. tolerance in and of itself quickly becomes meaningless, at that point. especially when it's speech and not merely political positions - we're not just making decisions about who should be in office, we're morally condemning certain kinds of speech.

and that's fine. really! i think it's an entirely valid goal and i have no particular interest in defending gaybashers or whatever. but you need to have and articulate an actual basis for that position, instead of just throwing out a line about TOLERANCE GOOD AND INTOLERANCE BAD and relying entirely on the agreement of the group of people who are already deeply committed to agreeing with you.

not just you, honestly. it's a whole line of argument that bothers me.

[(Anonymous)]

The way I see it, one is objecting to an entity / person's life, the other is objecting to an objection. I don't see those as examples of the same concept of tolerance vs intolerance.

[(Anonymous)]

why is being gay good and something to be tolerated?

Because it hurts no one. Two guys or gals having sex, getting married, and raising a family hurts NO ONE.

why is objecting to gay marriage bad and something not to be tolerated?

Because it hurts someone -- it blocks TONS of legal benefits to gay couples, for one.

at the point where you're actually trying to rule out certain kinds of speech

You can say what you want. But freedom of speech is not freedom from social consequences -- just legal ones. OP is complaining about social consequences.

we're morally condemning certain kinds of speech.

As well we should. People have the right to say/think whatever they want. And WE have the right to ostracize them if we find it reprehensible.

[(Anonymous)]

THANK YOU


+1

[(Anonymous)]

again, i have no problem with morally condemning speech. it's the grounds for condemning it that i'm arguing about. because people seem to just not even bother really justifying it.

& i find that basis, of harm, really unsatisfactory and uncompelling, and to me it looks like it's hardly even a justification. because a hypothetical person who's against gay marriage* would say "but why, gay marriage IS harmful, for such-and-such a reason!" and that's the argument that really needs to be defeated. if you want to morally condemn this kind of speech, it needs to be on the basis that gay marriage is good and gay people are human beings and that actions or speech against gay people and gay rights is absolutely and positively morally wrong.

but that has nothing to do with tolerance, so stop fucking talking about tolerance, especially when you want to be intolerant towards things. if you want to make a judgment about what kind of society you want to have and what the real, positive, concrete limits of that kind of society ought to be, that requires concrete judgment.

*which, again, to be clear here, i'm not against gay marriage, i'm highly in favor of gay marriage, everyone get gay married now

[(Anonymous)]

gay marriage IS harmful, for such-and-such a reason

And we can evaluate if that justification holds up. We all have brains and the ability to analyze and judge evidence. If it's shoddy, then of course we're going to reject it.

but that has nothing to do with tolerance, so stop fucking talking about tolerance

It has everything to do with tolerance. The tolerance of intolerance is itself oppressive. If you tolerate hate speech against women, you're being intolerant towards women. If you tolerate the sexual abuse of little boys, you're oppressing and being intolerant of little boys' rights. It's the same with LGBT rights.

[(Anonymous)]

And we can evaluate if that justification holds up. We all have brains and the ability to analyze and judge evidence. If it's shoddy, then of course we're going to reject it.

quite. but my point is, that's a conversation that has very little to do with tolerance and intolerance.

It has everything to do with tolerance. The tolerance of intolerance is itself oppressive. If you tolerate hate speech against women, you're being intolerant towards women. If you tolerate the sexual abuse of little boys, you're oppressing and being intolerant of little boys' rights. It's the same with LGBT rights.

but i feel like that, in some sense, makes my point that tolerance doesn't make very much sense as a terminal value. because just talking about being tolerant, you wind up in all these situations where tolerance of different things directly conflicts, and so you have to look to something else to justify where you draw the line, in the end. you have to justify it by means of something besides tolerance.

[(Anonymous)]

"quite. but my point is, that's a conversation that has very little to do with tolerance and intolerance. "

It does. Anything that violates a person's rights will always be a form of intolerance. It's why religious arguments against abortion and gay marriage are bunk. Because those violate a person's rights. Whereas a person who has moral objections to abortion/gay marriage still has the right to practice their religion but they don't have the right to impose that religion on others.

In short, it's not intolerant to not tolerate the intolerance of others.

"tolerance doesn't make very much sense as a terminal value"

It does. But you have to consider the overall net effect. If tolerating a person's intolerance is violating someone's rights, then it's not "tolerance" because the net effect is INTOLERANT due to the violation of rights.

There are multiple factors to consider, of course, but you can't tolerate child rape and then say you're open-minded. You're not. Because the toleration of that action is intolerant towards children and thus is, overall, INTOLERANT.

[blitzwing]

If you tolerate hate speech against women, you're being intolerant towards women.

I don't think so. A person allowing someone to say "women suck, women belong back in the kitchen" is not committing an intolerant act toward women. Only the person actually saying those things is promoting intolerance. The person letting them speak is just allowing free speech.

[(Anonymous)]

Separation of church and state. No, you can't take away someone's rights because big ol' skydaddy say it was bad.

[sabotabby]

Well said.

[(Anonymous)]

Love your icon!

[ill_omened]

Absolute morality brah.

You're right the basis for that and how we achieve it becomes complicated, but the sole alternative is nihilism.

We could discuss the foundation for that morality, but you would find few people who would disagree with the standard of some functional version of utilitarianism and individual freedom, and by rejecting this standard it becomes impossible to hold any sort of moral conversation without first going into incredible depth on founding principles.

[(Anonymous)]

i'd say two things

first, while people might agree in principle on some functional moral code, there's clearly also huge and widespread disagreement on the practical implications of that, and so it behooves us to be more clear about what moral stances we're taking and to take these arguments seriously

second, i'm fine with it being a question of absolute morality! i'm down as fuck with that. but, again, stop fucking talking about tolerance and intolerance when what you really mean is that bigotry is intrinsically morally wrong.

[ill_omened]

Well no, because it's an expression of these two truths.

As difficult as conditional statements can be, it's a simple argument of if it is not harmful (within certain criteria) than tolerance states that it's okay.

The attempt to differentiate the two doesn't make any sort of substantial point.

[(Anonymous)]

Sometimes, tolerance for other "opinions" or practices is fucking wrong.

I know of American soldiers who had to learn to "tolerate" Afghan men sexually abusing boys. Because it was their "culture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

Nope. When you're hurting someone -- be it a gay person or a child, you're in the wrong and I will support condemning you in every manner I can.

[(Anonymous)]

so then stop fucking justifying things on the basis of tolerance then

[(Anonymous)]

Because it is an issue of intolerance.

By tolerating that practice, you are expressing intolerance towards the rights of those boys.

The violation of their rights makes the tolerance of their sexual abuse INTOLERANT overall because it's such an egregious infraction.

[(Anonymous)]

i feel like i'm in an abbot and costello routine

by tolerating that practice, you're not expressing intolerance; you're condoning something cruel and awful and morally wrong being done to them. its wrongness has nothing to do with our tolerance of the boys itself.

[(Anonymous)]

So what you're saying is, there's no such thing as tolerance.

[ill_omened]

No.

Merely it doesn't cover respecting peoples opinions when it's homophobic, misogynistic, etc.

[feotakahari]

Everyone I've seen argue this acts like no one else has ever discussed or evaluated it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance_paradox

[ill_omened]

If you had you'd understand that for all intents and purposes the only argument against it is a semantic not ideological one.

[(Anonymous)]

i'm aware of the discussions, i just don't particularly agree with the conclusions