[deathspeed]

I think this guy nails it:  "To make matters worse, a new cultural definition of 'tolerance' has emerged.  Tolerance used to be the attitude that we took toward one another when we disagreed about an important issue; we would agree to treat each other with respect, even though we refused to embrace each other's view on a particular topic.  Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims.  According to this redefinition of tolerance, anything other than acceptance and approval is narrow-minded and bigoted." - J. Warner Wallace

I've seen this in action on these boards as well as in real life.  If a person does not agree with gay marriage for any reason, that person hates gays (even if their brother/sister/bff is gay).  If a person disagrees with [insert any religion here] for any reason, that person hates everyone of that religion (even if their spouse follows that religion).  If a person does not agree with the Tea Party extremes, they love Obamacare (even if they are a card-carrying straight ticket Republican). 

Attitudes like that have a chilling effect on discussion.  I generally don't share my opinions on facebook or join in interesting forum discussions because I don't' feel like being labeled as narrow-minded or attacked personally when I am merely expressing an opinion, seeking information, or providing information.  It's not a matter of thin skin; my work has calloused me so strangers attacking me don't bother me personally, but I don't want to get sucked in and sink to their level.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Mr. Vega]

I think this guy nails it:  "To make matters worse, a new cultural definition of 'tolerance' has emerged.  Tolerance used to be the attitude that we took toward one another when we disagreed about an important issue; we would agree to treat each other with respect, even though we refused to embrace each other's view on a particular topic.  Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims.  According to this redefinition of tolerance, anything other than acceptance and approval is narrow-minded and bigoted." - J. Warner Wallace

I've seen this in action on these boards as well as in real life.  If a person does not agree with gay marriage for any reason, that person hates gays (even if their brother/sister/bff is gay).  If a person disagrees with [insert any religion here] for any reason, that person hates everyone of that religion (even if their spouse follows that religion).  If a person does not agree with the Tea Party extremes, they love Obamacare (even if they are a card-carrying straight ticket Republican). 

Attitudes like that have a chilling effect on discussion.  I generally don't share my opinions on facebook or join in interesting forum discussions because I don't' feel like being labeled as narrow-minded or attacked personally when I am merely expressing an opinion, seeking information, or providing information.  It's not a matter of thin skin; my work has calloused me so strangers attacking me don't bother me personally, but I don't want to get sucked in and sink to their level.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

You no doubt consider me a prime offender, so let me give you my side of the story:

It is hard to be tolerant of opinions that fuel and justify actions that harm others; to use William O. Douglas's term, beliefs can be "brigaded with action," and in doing so forfeit their acceptance. Notice the word I used, "acceptance", and not "protection." That will be telling later.

There is a constant battle liberals fight between our civil libertarian impulses (which mostly agree with your sentiments), and our understanding that surest (and ultimately only) way to fight injustice is to target the beliefs that produce it.

Here's what really needs to be emphasized, since a lot of people in our generation don't seem to understand it now (for which I partly blame the culture of the internet): arguing that we as a society should not tolerate certain intolerant beliefs is not censorship. The whole purpose of the principle that governments should be forbidden, by banning the legal censoring of speech and opinion, from deciding what is acceptable and is not acceptable is so that decision is left to us. We have always had the right to decide what is and what isn't acceptable as a community. To speak your mind should never be a crime - but we don't have to indulge you, and award you the resources you need to successfully advocate for policies that harm others. We can damn well make the choice to shun you. Should we have a damn good reason for doing so? You bet, but we have every right to do it. Every human society that has ever existed has had some rules that everyone is expected to follow, either inside or outside the law; the question is what those rules should be. And at some point, we have a right to invoke the Harm Principle to justify (non-legal) sanctions against certain activities.

Unless, of course, you're actually engaging in harassment, bullying, threats or other "speech" that quite clearly meets the LEGAL standard of speech that has been "brigaded with action," at which point the law can come down on your ass. But I don't think we're talking about that, so much as those who express opinions that might try to excuse and justify such behavior.

We were never calling for censorship, ever. This was never about that. It's always been about CONVINCING enough people to take a stand against beliefs that contribute to harm, to shun them for doing so. We don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. We can do things that laws can't.

And if someone is yelling at you about something that doesn't deserve that kind of fire, or if they can't or won't explain to you why something you said crossed the line, they need to calm the **** down. You save that **** for something that really deserves it, and the responsibility not to abuse our power is on us.

[Mr. Vega]

There's lots of debates where people go at each others' throats for ****ty reasons, like some policy debates you gave an example of. You need to give the benefit of the doubt to civility, searching for common ground, or at least just being able to talk to each other like calm, rational adults. But sometimes what you call a chilling effect is unavoidable and necessary, for the reasons I gave above. Those times are a tiny minority. Openness and acceptance of others' opinions should always the default rule.

[Bobboau]

To silence a dissenting voice is to admit defeat. It is to say "I cannot provide a better option". You become censor, burner of books. It may not be your goal but it is what you become, If you are not going to go down that road you must accept that some people are going to say things that seriously piss you off, and they are going to convince some people that they are right and you are wrong, and you must defend their right to do so. You must fight to the death against what they say, but defend to the death their right to say it. and not try to gain gate keeper roles in communities so you can technically-not-be-censoring-because-you-are-not-the-government. Even when what they say is "problematic".

Any time you find an excuse to silence people all you are doing is inventing a new way to burn books. You can claim that such and such speech/opinion cause such and such action, and that speech just so happens to be any criticism of your ideals, and then very conveniently you can dehumanize and ignore your opposition and then ban them from all public discourse where you have managed to gain power, Further enhancing your own power. You can crush those repressive words but this is not progress, this is fiat of an authority and will only breed further restrictions on liberties and rights and expression. In your zeal to end oppression you become oppressive. You can only have growth and progress in an environment of free and open discourse, a place where any idea can be presented and criticized, a free marketplace of ideas, not a hug box. You have a right to be offended, but no right not to be.

[Mr. Vega]

To silence a dissenting voice is to admit defeat. It is to say "I cannot provide a better option". You become censor, burner of books. It may not be your goal but it is what you become, If you are not going to go down that road you must accept that some people are going to say things that seriously piss you off, and they are going to convince some people that they are right and you are wrong, and you must defend their right to do so. You must fight to the death against what they say, but defend to the death their right to say it. and not try to gain gate keeper roles in communities so you can technically-not-be-censoring-because-you-are-not-the-government. Even when what they say is "problematic".

Any time you find an excuse to silence people all you are doing is inventing a new way to burn books. You can claim that such and such speech/opinion cause such and such action, and that speech just so happens to be any criticism of your ideals, and then very conveniently you can dehumanize and ignore your opposition and then ban them from all public discourse where you have managed to gain power, Further enhancing your own power. You can crush those repressive words but this is not progress, this is fiat of an authority and will only breed further restrictions on liberties and rights and expression. In your zeal to end oppression you become oppressive. You can only have growth and progress in an environment of free and open discourse, a place where any idea can be presented and criticized, a free marketplace of ideas, not a hug box. You have a right to be offended, but no right not to be.

Lol, this always comes down to those who believe in democracy vs libertarians who fear the "tyranny of the majority". It's not tyranny. I wield no authority whatsoever. I can only persuade. Shunning is a product of the individual actions of many, not something done by "command." You may not realize you're doing it, but your "authority" is often a slur for what is really earned consensus.

And the fact is that we all practice what you call censorship as part of normal thought and discussion. We eject ideas that haven't earned their place at the table. We don't let them back in because they have a "right" to be accepted equally. The stuff I am talking about is just at the more extreme end of this process.

[Bobboau]

I'm not talking about tyranny of the majority, or even group think, I'm talking about what happens when you 'persuade' someone with actual power (or gain actual power yourself) to start banning people, or shutting down toics. I'm not talking about ignoring someone, I'm talking about killing their digital presence.

[Mr. Vega]

I'm not talking about tyranny of the majority, or even group think, I'm talking about what happens when you 'persuade' someone with actual power (or gain actual power yourself) to start banning people, or shutting down toics. I'm not talking about ignoring someone, I'm talking about killing their digital presence.

An openly anti-Semitic thread here would get shut down pretty quick. Are you telling me we can't do that? We totally can. It's our (well, the admins) right, cause it's our forum. It's our community. We get to make the decisions.

[Mars]

If you can't convince someone that merely being poor or having dark skin does not certainly mean that one is lazy, for example than continuing a discussion with that person about societal problems becomes pointless. He has proven himself incapable of engaging in discussion about poverty or race until such a time as his opinions become more nuanced. Until that time his opinions on those topics are wrong or if not wrong then right by accident.  Why would anyone "embrace" his ideas as being equally valid and true? They are obviously not.

No, tolerance is accepting where someone is coming from. It is not accepting whatever drivel they come up with as equally valuable. You can try to find common ground, you can try to present the best view of reality you have available, you can accept another possible representation of reality as potentially being true.

But if someone tries to tell you that White Supremacy website advocating the hanging of "smug blacks" is only talking about "the bad ones" through the word-smith magic of "explicit exclusion," you're probably better off telling them to shut the **** up.

[Mr. Vega]

you're probably better off telling them to shut the **** up.

Which is not censorship! Anyone who says it is is entitled, and thinks their ideas are entitled to time and space they failed to earn. The shunning I'm talking about is lots of people telling the guy to shut the **** up. A multitude of individual actions combining into what is accused of being censorship.

[Hellstryker]

The point you all seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be "views" are actual fact. For example, gay people are not going to in any way harm you, your rights, or your country. That is entirely indisputable, and in such cases this definition of tolerance is the one that should apply.

Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true

On the other hand you have points that are debatable such as gun control or immigration, which have clear pros and cons to both sides and many different ways to view the issue, which can and will affect you, your rights, and your country. In this case, this definition of tolerance is the one that should be applied.

Tolerance used to be the attitude that we took toward one another when we disagreed about an important issue; we would agree to treat each other with respect, even though we refused to embrace each other's view on a particular topic.

[Luis Dias]

I especially love it when the phenomena that the OP exposes goes against me and my words get twisted and exaggerated into a zone of utter abhorrency (what a monster!), I get ****ing mad, I say something like "****ing hell do I love being misread", bail out of the thread before I get even more mad, and what's the end result? I get a warning for being "sarcastic". Jesus ****ing hell. Apparently even sarcasm is out of line nowadays, even when fully warranted.

And the **** continues even on this very thread. The droning brainwashed ideological bull**** just goes on like a ****ty cassete here. "Are you saying we should accept blatant racism here?" Yeah, that was totally what the OP was talking about. Why don't we allow the KKK throwing their propaganda here? Or what about hatred of gays? Clearly this board is filled with gay haters. They just hate them, dontcha know? It's not like they just have a different opinion on how society should be formalized and codified. No, it's hatred. "No, here you are being ignorant Luis, "hatred" doesn't just mean "hatred", it also means problematic ideas blah blah blah..." aaah jesus f christ, I have enough of this semantical sophistry that has polluted the internet.

And don't get me started on "Well if this guy has a different opinion that must mean he has proven himself incapable of having a reasonable discussion of the subject matter". Don't you ****ing read what you are writing? Do you think a "reasonable" person would EVER write such a totalitarian ****fest for a sentence? Here, here's a hint: if you don't want to discuss **** because you don't like the idea of discussing a particular ****, THEN DON'T. Leave the discussion to those that want to. I had enough of that discussion on Ferguson, not because I have a marginal radical opinion of it (matter of fact, I quite agree with (moderately) the leftist interpretation of what is going on in America, but that's besides the point!), but because any tangent that seems to go to an unapproved terrain that the high priests of morality in this board will immediately be branded as "HATRED OF X", and you can already feel the tension rising and rising and of course if anyone misreads what you say into a simpletonic one liner, then you are guilty of taking people to uncomfortable terrains and rising tensions and whatnots.

Well if forums are hereby declared to not be places of discussion and dissent but rather echo ****ing chambers for the righteous elitists in here, count me the **** out. I'm out. BYE.

[Mars]

He has proven himself incapable of engaging in discussion about poverty or race until such a time as his opinions become more nuanced. . .
You can try to find common ground, you can try to present the best view of reality you have available, you can accept another possible representation of reality as potentially being true.

Do you think a "reasonable" person would EVER write such a totalitarian ****fest for a sentence?

I think either you're not understanding what I wrote, or I'm having trouble understanding your reaction to it. The example was chosen because its something that nearly everyone on this forum would roughly agree with. I wanted to point out that tolerance does, and should have limitations.

[Luis Dias]

But that was not the point the OP was making. That is like someone saying "Hey look we got a tolerance problem here, there's really little of it", and then someone else shows up and says "Are you saying we should tolerate the KKK?"

The OP raised the issue that certain discussions are being the target of a chill effect due to this excessive moralization of certain opinions into HATRED OF X, and then you come up and say "Well, I think we should keep racists out".

This is the kind of level these discussions are at the moment. ****ty level. Rock bottom level.

[Mars]

Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims.

Was the claim made. Debates and discussions should be about what is real and what is not real. What was required was examples of this being a potentially very bad outlook on what tolerance ought to be.

And if you think that this is so "****ty" then I doubt anything I'd have to say would make you feel better about it.

[Mr. Vega]

We made it quite clear what constituted grounds for shutting out a conversation, detailed reasons as to why, and an acknowledgement that this scenario should be quite rare, and that outside this scenario we were in agreement with OP. But don't let that stop you from going supernova.

You would instantly embrace our logic if someone demanded equal time for creationism and science in a scientific debate.

[Luis Dias]

See what I mean? Who spoke anything about "equal time" and what in the god's name does that have to do with forum activities? "Time"? The ****? And who am I to deny people from speaking their ignorant minds about creotardation? Do you think I have the mentality of a censor? No, I wouldn't instantly do any **** like that, stop pretending you know me. You are also under the false impression that my anger right now is against the rules of the board.

And Mars, please reread what deathspeed quoted again and again until you finally understand his point. No, you didn't understand even the direction of that quotation, let alone its meaning.

[Mr. Vega]

And who am I to deny people from speaking their ignorant minds about creotardation? Do you think I have the mentality of a censor? No, I wouldn't instantly do any **** like that, stop pretending you know me. You are also under the false impression that my anger right now is against the rules of the board.

It would really help your accusations that I misrepresent others positions if you would stop doing that exact same thing. I do not intend to ever again have a discussion about your "anger". And I can't accuse you of having the mentality of a censor when I just went to great lengths to explain why we were NOT dealing with censorship.

The quotation itself was fine, I question how he applied it to our situation. He tried to imply that any disagreement on a couple of points would provoke accusations of having a whole series of objectionable beliefs not being immediately commented upon (I don't think I need to elaborate what those would be, on either side, in the context of our previous discussions). My point was that it's is 100% ok to come down on certain opinions, not because they are "offensive", but because they actively cover and promote harm to others. I have no right to make an accusation against someone's character simply because they stated such an opinion, unless that opinion is part of a pattern that makes clear the underlying prejudices, but I do have a right to attack the opinion itself. I'm sorry if you find that idea ****ty.

[Luis Dias]

So "shutting out a conversation" is now something totally different from "censorship"? Since when may I ask?

And there you go accusing **** that didn't happen. The OP never said that there would be a provocation and direct accusations of having "obejctionable beliefs". He said something quite more subtle and sensitive. He said that there was a chilling effec to all this nauseating moralization of every single discussion. Oh look we are discussing X, we could discuss some really ambiguous and curious things in here, but no, there comes the moral police squad with probing questions to ensure you are not a racist douchebag. And it's that kind of attitude precisely that has the chilling effect.

And you totally make your game clear here. You blatantly argue for bullying people into submissively accept your superegotistical opinions on what is to be argued, what isn't, etc. Your praxis also makes it very clear. The problem with all of this is that reality is a hundred times more nuanced and paradoxical than the simpletonic ideological prejudices that one holds when we are in our twenties and arrogantly think we have sussed the world out, but nevertheless one uses their own arrogance to clamp down on others based on our simplified and codified worldview of what is right™ and wrong™ according to our egos. For this kind of activity, forums are not a place where one meets other diverse thoughts, learns to appreciate other worldviews, learns to tolerate people despite ideological differences. No, for this kind of internet persona, the internet world is to be conquered and submitted to our worldview. Anyone who deviates will be exposed and shamed. What did you say sir about blacks? Hmmm. Just making sure, ok, you can move along. Wait what, what was that regarding games and gays? Oh you meant "days"? Ahah, I'm sorry, move along you are all right.

As if your moral approval is important.

[StarSlayer]

Slayer's Quick Guide to Tolerance

Things that you need to accept/tolerate are the parts of individuals or groups that they have no control over.  So items like gender, ethnicity, sexual preference get a free pass.  The parts of individuals or groups they have a choice in such as actions, ideals, etc. are free game for disagreement as far as I am concerned.  That said it is always beneficial to understand the reasoning/motivations behind the choices both because they can open the door for compromise and a more precision based method for countering their position when necessary.

[Lorric]

At this point I will just say I think Deathspeed is 100% right in that this forum has a huge tolerance problem. I personally think it's HLP's greatest issue.