Most of us recognize intolerance when we see it, it sure doesn't hurt to reexamine intolerance on a regular basis, so we can continue to spot any new intolerances spewing forth from our esteemed repugs and rump (as well as other sources of intolerances).

It seems like hate finds any little crack it can, and then attempt to propel itself through the crack, establishing a new level of hate, a new method of intolerance.

When those who exhibit intolerance accuse others of being intolerant, it is time for a closer examination, I think.

I have grown weary of such accusations. I will turn the tables on people who make such accusations. It's easy.

...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

For my part I stand with Jefferson's point of view:

Faith never trumps reason. Many people do not understand that, I'm afraid. If the initial premise is faulty, the rest fails the test of logic. That is why religion cannot be logical. It is base on faith, not demonstrable facts.

Many of us think democracy is better than monarchy. It seems logical. But there is no guarantee that 51% of people will always choose the best the candidate. In fact, by definition, up to 49% of people may think the other 51% per cent are nuts. See, for example, the election of 2004.

So maybe it's more of a faith that democracy is always better, rather than a proven fact.

The examples are all over the place from teaching fucked up creationist ideas in public schools to denying civil rights to abuse of children. So long as people cite their imaginary friends as justification for anything, reason takes a back seat.

Period.

Women are treated differently, and generally they consider it inferior in almost every country on earth. Some vastly worse than others though.

There are ranges of ideas that are "tolerated" in societies. Any outside of those are in someways restricted. More so in some countries than others. Most can "ban" certain ideas from being discussed in various public contexts.

Immunity: Almost every country extends some sort of immunity, especially for "leaders" (or at least the powerful). It is more formal in some contexts than others.

Restriction of personal lives: Most societies demand that you conform to a set of "normalities" especially in intimate relationships. Polygamy, homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, etc. are variably restricted or outright banned in most countries to some extent or another.

Attempting to control those not in the group: This is the toughest one since the definition of "group" needs some work. Every country restricts what non-citizens can do. Many countries restrict what various members outside of some defined group within the citizens can do. Age, gender, ethnicity, and in some countries, military or police members have "special" privileges that others do not.

Threatening punishment: That's pretty much how most legal systems work. Most of us avoid going anywhere near the legal system because it involves a threat of "losing". Our drug war, and it's tendency to criminalize behavior that is difficult to justify being criminal is just one example.

Of course we have the benefit in this country, and western European countries of electing those that do these things. In much of the world this is not true. In this country right now there are alot of discussions about just how much the rich and powerful actually do the choosing.

You make allusions to religious organizations which in effect become "extra-governmental" authorities. Of course this exists because for a significant time, they were in the hierarchy of governmental authority. Today, it is why countries like China aren't fond of institutions like the Catholic church, because they represent challenges to their authority.

For example, you use "intolerance of women." But "women" is not an idea or behavior it is a class of people.
I'd call that discrimination, because mistreating people for an unchangeable characteristic is different from suppressing an idea or behavior.

Covering everything from derogatory language to mass murder and no matter the reason.

are examples of discrimination in the action stage?

For one thing, calling them “concentration camps” is simply hyperbole intended as an appeal to emotion fallacy. For another, they aren’t limited to “theism”, nor is the purpose associated with theism.

Has a lot more to do with political intolerance which isn’t subject matter for this group despite the few dozen threads you’ve created on the subject, no doubt in another one of your lame attempts at pretending atheism is no different than theism.

We both know the answer to that one.

Funny how, in a group where a few very frequent posters constantly talk of the intolerance of theists, when it is demonstrated that some atheists demonstrate the same intolerance, it is called diversion.

As if theists and atheists were 2 different species.

Just sayin’

Asking for the victims of Chinese intolerance.

The victims who are put in concentration camps, and the victims who have spies lodged in their homes.

The victims who are punished for saying prayers.

When we see such intolerance, should we ask "what can we do?"

Should we ask "why are you posting this?"

Or should we condemn intolerance, and recognize that it is everywhere.

As in the obvious deflection when you ask why I am posting about China.

So let’s just be clear on that.

well, we know why.

YMMV

A place where religion is openly discussed? I mean, that's why I'm here, anyhow. I'm very interested in religion, and it's not a topic for open discussion anywhere else on DU but here. I'm pretty sure that's why everyone who posts here is here. Do you think that's incorrect?

The victims who are punished for saying prayers.
_

All zero of them. It'll take a concentration camp the size of a Bible to house them.

And the concentration camps, in true totalitarian fashion, are renamed re-education camps.

First because you post about China frequently in the religion group, but never in the General Discussion group, where it would be seen by more people. Second because you say we should ask "What can we do?" but you never answer that question yourself.

Third because your point seems to always be that "intolerance is everywhere," which is demonstrably false. Intolerance is generally not present in Western societies, particularly.when looking at liberal and moderate groups, such as the Democratic Party as a whole.

Fourth because the observation that "intolerance is everywhere," even if true is a trivial observation, as if you said, "atoms are everywhere."

Fifth because our condemnation of a supposed universal phenomenon is irrelevant. If it is everywhere, it is unavoidable, like death. Shall we condemn death, then?

So why do you REALLY post about this?

so is intolerance directed at theists.

So it is off topic. When someone points out that you are off topic, you often start a new thread about whatever it is you want to talk about instead. When starts a thread about some other topic, you often turn the subject to intolerance, which in turn you reduce to tribalism, which then you reduce to a universal human trait.

When someone points out you have done this, or done some other undesirable thingx you point to other people who do it too. And if at last, you run out of excuses and dodges, you admit you are human and end the conversation.

So you do just post these things to just to turn the conversation to a tautology: humans are humans.

Surely there is more to any subject than tautologies and banalities? If not, why not vote for Trump? He is intolerant like all of us, he is tribal, he is human, he might not even hate Uighurs, therefore he is no worse than any Democrat, and a perfectly fine example of human behavior.

Thereby, we have leveled all of our behaviors to our lowest common denominator, but at least we are not intolerant. Right?

So you are incorrect.

And as much as some here would prefer this group be devoted to attacking theists, that is not the purpose of the group.

There is a closed group for that and you are free to post there with no chance of argument.

While it may in fact have been inspired by something you wrote on another thread, the described characteristics of intolerance apply to many situations, regardless of who the perpetrators or victims are.

So, no it's not actually "about" theists and does not attack anybody.

Personally, I often question what the purpose of this group is. Based on my observation, the purpose appears to be divert topics to other topics. Whoever successfully diverts the most in a given thread, wins. Second prize goes to whoever accuses someone else of diverting the thread the most.

My opinion.

The question?

And, given that M decide to post it in this group, it is obvious that M intended it to be directed at theists.

I think he posted it here because the subject comes up a lot in this group.

I don't think we should condemn something that is everywhere. Because that would make life hopeless. And it would be boring.

And also create the illusion of moral superiority.

this one was obviously started as a response to my threads about the intolerant Chinese Government. A Government run by atheists.

You are intolerant of humans. I understand.

Is intolerance a human characteristic?

I understand if you don't want to understand that. Misunderstanding is a human characteristic.

Even groups of religious humans?

If so, why?

Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2019, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)

it is both the worst thing in the world and can also include the most innocuous behaviors.

Worthy of reposting, and wider circulation.