Tolerance

[Panache]

So what if some gay people acted stupid, they're human.

As are homophobes, who also tend to act more than their share of stupid. I find stupidity tolerable. Otherwise I would find myself very lonely indeed.

 

[Thunder]

And it is harmful when people are harrassed for their beliefs.

as long as homophobes are peaceful, mind their own business, and don't harass folks, homophobes should not themselves be harrassed.

just as racists, who hate blacks for religious reasons, should not be harrassed as long as they remain peaceful & non-confrontational.

 

[NoC_T]

As are homophobes, who also tend to act more than their share of stupid. I find stupidity tolerable. Otherwise I would find myself very lonely indeed.

Again, belief is one thing. And where it begins and ends with personal opinion, no harm is possible, except arguably to oneself.

But where it becomes outspoken, especially to the point of maligning a certain group, it becomes harmful.

 

[Panache]

But, if you are going to be tolerant of her irrational fear, then shouldn't you be tolerant of your friend's relatively more rational fears?

Yes indeed. I would like for her to be more tolerant, and I would also like them to be more tolerant, but I am willing to be tolerant of intolerance on both sides in the meantime.

 

[lizzie]

Again, belief is one thing. And where it begins and ends with personal opinion, no harm is possible, except arguably to oneself.

But where it becomes outspoken, especially to the point of maligning a certain group, it becomes harmful.

Words are not harmful. Actions are.

As to either group- homophobes or those who hate homophobes- I would have the same response:
Get over it. Live with it.

 

[NoC_T]

Yes indeed. I would like for her to be more tolerant, and I would also like them to be more tolerant, but I am willing to be tolerant of intolerance on both sides in the meantime.

Except it exists only on one side.

A court of law would deem it so, and it stands as ever so slightly pertinent, regardless.

 

[NoC_T]

Words are not harmful. Actions are.

As to either group- homophobes or those who hate homophobes- I would have the same response:
Get over it. Live with it.

Words may well precipitate contention. Or such as censorship would not exist.

Physical expression is unnecessary for an attitude to qualify as harmful. Were you badmouthed in the street, you would consider that you had been done harm, irrespective of your physical health after the fact.

By implication, school bullying can only be that which includes physical violence.

 

[Panache]

Except it exists only on one side.

Thats true enough. She didn't harrass my gay friends at all. The only thing she did was beg me to take her back home.

 

[NoC_T]

I guess we need to overhaul the legal system to omit defamation of character as illegal. Both slander and libel need no longer be recognised as 'harmful', if no bones are broken, right?

 

[NoC_T]

Thats true enough. She didn't harrass my gay friends at all. The only thing she did was beg me to take her back home.

Do you consider that she was harmed?

Ya know, since they didn't actually break her arms and legs?

I wonder if she felt harmed in some way. I suppose not, since she wasn't rushed to hospital. Oh well.

 

[StillBallin75]

There seems to be a misconception going around that tolerance is a one way street. That tolerance means tolerating gays, but does not mean tolerating homophobes. That judging people for being gay is wrong, but judging people for being homophobic is ok.

My homophobic friends seem to think there is something wrong with me hanging out with my gay friends, and my gay friends seem to think there is something wrong with me hanging out with my homophobic friends. I find my gay friends and homophobic friends equally tolerable.

In related news I also tolerate arachnophobes and acrophobes. If anything I find germiphobes somewhat less tolerable than homophobes.

Question for debate: Should homophobia be tolerated? How are irrational fears less deserving of tolerance than sexual preferences?

Well, for starters, homophobia isn't a psychological anxiety disorder the same way the other phobias you mention are. Homophobic views are generally taught and socialized, so big difference.

That being said, I have no problem with you hanging out with whatever friends you choose to hang out with. I just think ignorance is something that should not be tolerated and should be called out, and for me homophobia generally manifests itself as a form of ignorance.

 

[NoC_T]

We could ask the mods on this forum if they consider that words and opinions are harmful.

Since no one's being physically attacked here, what is the need of them?

 

[grip]

Words may well precipitate contention. Or such as censorship would not exist.

Physical expression is unnecessary for an attitude to qualify as harmful. Were you badmouthed in the street, you would consider that you had been done harm, irrespective of your physical health after the fact.

By implication, school bullying can only be that which includes physical violence.

Words can definitely lead to harmful actions and certain words aren't even tolerated by law. Hate speech, defamation, hollering in certain public places and using words like bomb or fire inappropriately but a certain amount of verbal expression is protected by the law. If bullying is caught by the school staff or any other adult official, then it can be stopped and reported, though there is no way to prevent free will. What would you have us do?

 

[NoC_T]

Words can definitely lead to harmful actions and certain words aren't even tolerated by law. Hate speech, defamation, hollering in certain public places and using words like bomb or fire inappropriately but a certain amount of verbal expression is protected by the law. If bullying is caught by the school staff or any other adult official, then it can be stopped and reported, though there is no way to prevent free will. What would you have us do?

I never mentioned free will.

My point is that words may indeed be harmful. No more than that.

 

[StillBallin75]

Does it matter? Even if we suppose that it were an irrational hate. Is that an excuse for intolerance? I saw a clip of one of the Phelps kids saying hateful things about gays. He must have been around four or five. I felt pity for him.

Do you think that kid needs for his ideas about gays and people who are tolerant of gays to be reinforced by ostricization, judgement and further hatred at their hands? Or do you think he should be educated with patience, forebearance, and tolerance?

It really depends on what you mean by "tolerance" in this case. If you are trying to educate and change his views, are you really tolerating them? (I don't have a problem with patience or forbearance).

And as for why Thorgasm mentioned the DSM-IV, as I have pointed out already, arachnophobia, acrophobia, and mysophobia are anxiety disorders, so we either tolerate or treat them because the individual has little or no conscious control over their irrational fears. Homophobia is quite a different matter.

 

[StillBallin75]

I agree. But the discussion isn't really about what tolerance is, but rather when tolerance is appropriate.

Seems to me it's both. We really haven't come upon an agreed definition of tolerance yet.

 

[lizzie]

Seems to me it's both. We really haven't come upon an agreed definition of tolerance yet.

I pretty much view tolerance as having the ability to turn your head away, and be content to let people live as they wish, as long as they aren't causing you harm.

 

[StillBallin75]

I pretty much view tolerance as having the ability to turn your head away, and be content to let people live as they wish, as long as they aren't causing you harm.

I view tolerance as being tolerant of different cultures and beliefs and values as long as they are not ignorant (in other words, fly in the face of reality and facts) or harmful, or lead to harmful actions.

Many homophobic views, for instance, stem from ignorance.

If you are a religious individual and believe homosexuality is a sin according to God's Word, I have absolutely no problem with that as long as those views don't lead you to commit harmful actions.

Now I think the issue here is Panache's definition of tolerance is a lot broader than what you and I have come up with, so he's going about his argument a different way.

 

[Panache]

Do you consider that she was harmed?

Ya know, since they didn't actually break her arms and legs?

I wonder if she felt harmed in some way. I suppose not, since she wasn't rushed to hospital. Oh well.

Are you implying that they were wrong to harrass her for her beliefs? Do you at least think it would have been wrong of them to breaks her arms and legs? Or is it only wrong when homophobes harrass and attack gays?

 

[NoC_T]

Are you implying that they were wrong to harrass her for her beliefs?

Er, yeah.

Do you at least think it would have been wrong of them to breaks her arms and legs? Or is it only wrong when homophobes harrass and attack gays?

She was harmed. To prevaricate here is dishonest.

 

[grip]

I never mentioned free will.

My point is that words may indeed be harmful. No more than that.

I did mention free will as part of the ability to use words.

Words may indeed be harmful but not to the extent that you equivocated of broken bones.

Actions will generally always speak louder than words.

 

[NoC_T]

I did mention free will as part of the ability to use words.

Words may indeed be harmful but not to the extent that you equivocated of broken bones.

Actions will generally always speak louder than words.

Were that true, virtually all of what we ever experience as prejudice could not be accounted thus.

And the harm done by words may well be far more injurious than a broken bone.

 

[Dezaad]

Thats true enough. She didn't harrass my gay friends at all. The only thing she did was beg me to take her back home.

Well, how in the world were they made aware of her homophobia in the first place, then? She didn't harass them by telling them by telling strangers they are sinners in her view, but somehow they were made aware of her intolerance. I am curious how this would transpire?

 

[grip]

Were that true, virtually all of what we ever experience as prejudice could not be accounted thus.

And the harm done by words may well be far more injurious than a broken bone.

Words used to incite violence or good are powerful motivators but cannot in themselves be said to equal the actions that follow.

What is the Constitution without deeds? What were Hitlers speeches without the acts of his followers? They are all hollow, until given substance.

The gun is said to be innocent of harm, until used. I will concede it is the ignorance of the mind that leads to harmful acts, if that is your point?

But my point remains that we cannot restrict freedoms much more than we do because people make uninformed decisions, it is part of how we grow and learn.

 

[NoC_T]

Words used to incite violence or good are powerful motivators but cannot in themselves be said to equal the actions that follow.

What is the Constitution without deeds? What were Hitlers speeches without the acts of his followers? They are all hollow, until given substance.

The gun is said to be innocent of harm, until used. I will concede it is the ignorance of the mind that leads to harmful acts, if that is your point?

But my point remains that we cannot restrict freedoms much more than we do because people make uninformed decisions, it is part of how we grow and learn.

No growth or learning curve was ever expedited by prejudice.

As for words as less harmful than actions, the law believes otherwise. So does every child who ever suffered bullying, or mental abuse.

And what of freedom unfettered by discriminatory language, arising from ignorance and intolerance? Is it not a worthy goal?