David Silverman op-ed: Shrinking the Tent: American Atheists won't tolerate intolerance

[Underseer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

 

[Tigers!]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

I believe it's the in group that I'm a part of. The other groups are too genetically and intellectually inferior to be able to shoulder that responsibility, so the burden of it falls upon us.

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

They are intolerant of intolerance. I suspect that this is not as well thought out as it seemed on a first, cursory view.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

The people marching with torches chanting about killing Jews... that is bigotry. (The President had a hard time calling that out)

If you have trouble understanding that, really, that is your fault... or possibly the fault of every teacher you ever had.

 

[prideandfall]

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

do you hate a group of people and want them to punished, either by a government or mob: Y/N
has that group done anything to you personally in a way you can tangibly articulate convincingly to a disinterested third party: Y/N

if you answered yes to the first question and no to the second question, you're a bigot.

wow... that was hard.

here's another easy way:
if you want a law enacted that severely limits or inconveniences a select group of people that doesn't include you from doing something that has no impact on you whatsoever, you're a bigot.

here's another one:
if the only reason you can come up with for why you hate a group is reciting what you heard about them from fox news, you're a bigot.

i can keep going if you want?
bigotry is a lot like sexual harassment, the only people who even remotely question what it is or act like you can't avoid doing it are the people currently doing right now who don't want to get caught.

 

[Underseer]

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

do you hate a group of people and want them to punished, either by a government or mob: Y/N
has that group done anything to you personally in a way you can tangibly articulate convincingly to a disinterested third party: Y/N

if you answered yes to the first question and no to the second question, you're a bigot.

wow... that was hard.

here's another easy way:
if you want a law enacted that severely limits or inconveniences a select group of people that doesn't include you from doing something that has no impact on you whatsoever, you're a bigot.

here's another one:
if the only reason you can come up with for why you hate a group is reciting what you heard about them from fox news, you're a bigot.

i can keep going if you want?
bigotry is a lot like sexual harassment, the only people who even remotely question what it is or act like you can't avoid doing it are the people currently doing right now who don't want to get caught.

It's so unfair that people accuse you of racism just because you say and do racist things. You're so persecuted! You're just like the Jews during the Holocaust when they were being killed by Nazis "alt right free speech advocates."

Sure, completely innocent African-Americans are being murdered in the streets and their murderers don't get punished, but you get accused of racism just because you say and do racist things. Don't those mean liberals know that you're a special snowflake and must never be criticized? It's so unfair! This is clearly White Genocide!

 

[Tigers!]

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

do you hate a group of people and want them to punished, either by a government or mob: Y/N
has that group done anything to you personally in a way you can tangibly articulate convincingly to a disinterested third party: Y/N

if you answered yes to the first question and no to the second question, you're a bigot.

wow... that was hard.

I answered N to both. What's my prize?

here's another easy way:
if you want a law enacted that severely limits or inconveniences a select group of people that doesn't include you from doing something that has no impact on you whatsoever, you're a bigot.

here's another one:

if the only reason you can come up with for why you hate a group is reciting what you heard about them from fox news, you're a bigot.

If I get a reason from the Guardian does that make me a bigot?

i can keep going if you want?
bigotry is a lot like sexual harassment, the only people who even remotely question what it is or act like you can't avoid doing it are the people currently doing right now who don't want to get caught.

No need to keep doing. I'd hate to see you all tired.

I think you might trouble distinguishing hate from disagreement. Disagreement does not automatically mean hate.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

I believe it's the in group that I'm a part of. The other groups are too genetically and intellectually inferior to be able to shoulder that responsibility, so the burden of it falls upon us.

I do like that answer Tom. Is it copyrighted?

 

[Tigers!]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

They are intolerant of intolerance. I suspect that this is not as well thought out as it seemed on a first, cursory view.

In Australia many years ago a group called 'Tolerance' existed. They spent a lot of time telling others what they didn't like. They didn't last very long.

When someone tells me how tolerant they are I just wait for the intolerance to appear. Usually doesn't take long.

 

[Jon Osterman]

do you hate a group of people and want them to punished, either by a government or mob: Y/N
has that group done anything to you personally in a way you can tangibly articulate convincingly to a disinterested third party: Y/N

if you answered yes to the first question and no to the second question, you're a bigot.

This seems a poor definition because you will have disagreement on the harm caused and the bias of the "third party". I am sure most bigots feel that the population they do not tolerate do indeed disadvantage them in some way. This may be really stupid, like say a racist being annoyed that a black man was employed in preference to them, due to positive discrimination. But it may be more (seemingly) reasonable. If, for example, you want pedophiles who molest children to be punished, even though they have not personally harmed you, I wouldn't call you a bigot.

I think your other definitions have similar issues.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

I believe it's the in group that I'm a part of. The other groups are too genetically and intellectually inferior to be able to shoulder that responsibility, so the burden of it falls upon us.

I do like that answer Tom. Is it copyrighted?

Just send me a nickel any time you use it and we're good.

 

[Underseer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

The people marching with torches chanting about killing Jews... that is bigotry. (The President had a hard time calling that out)

If you have trouble understanding that, really, that is your fault... or possibly the fault of every teacher you ever had.

Hey just because they were washing Nazi flags and calling for genocide doesn't mean you can accuse them of racism! If you advise them of racism, then you are attacking their free speech rights! This is white genocide! This is exactly why only white supremacists free speech advocates should be allowed to define what does and does not count as bigotry. You certainly can't let Amy off those dirty minorities determine that. They will always get that wrong because they are inherently inferior by birth! [/Conservolibertarian]

 

[Mumbles]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

The people marching with torches chanting about killing Jews... that is bigotry. (The President had a hard time calling that out)

If you have trouble understanding that, really, that is your fault... or possibly the fault of every teacher you ever had.

My guess is that the blog post in the OP is aimed at YouTube "skeptics" like Sargon of Akkad, who tweeted at a sexual assault survivor (and British MP that wants to take action against online harrassment) that he "wouldn't even rape [her]", and got many of his followers to do the same. Because the elected legislator who already has you in her sights is exactly the person you want to goad.

I'd consider this a good move for AA, all in all. Best to keep that sort of person out.

 

[Tigers!]

I believe it's the in group that I'm a part of. The other groups are too genetically and intellectually inferior to be able to shoulder that responsibility, so the burden of it falls upon us.

I do like that answer Tom. Is it copyrighted?

Just send me a nickel any time you use it and we're good.

Damn you are cheap. Do you accept bitcoin?

- - - Updated - - -

Hey just because they were washing Nazi flags and calling for genocide doesn't mean you can accuse them of racism! If you advise them of racism, then you are attacking their free speech rights! This is white genocide! This is exactly why only white supremacists free speech advocates should be allowed to define what does and does not count as bigotry. You certainly can't let Amy off those dirty minorities determine that. They will always get that wrong because they are inherently inferior by birth! [/Conservolibertarian]

If the emboldened portion correct?

 

[untermensche]

Everybody supports the right of people that agree with them to speak.

Tolerance is allowing the people you don't agree with to speak without interference.

Nazi's can talk of racial this and racial that. None of it is enlightening or true.

But they should be allowed to say it.

When there is too much restriction on speech a culture becomes like this forum with way too many restrictions.

Stale and inbred.

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

No it's not. That's one of the doors through which bigotry gains foothold. Tolerance is its own state encompassing a regional sense of morality and peace.

 

[Jaecp]

Everybody supports the right of people that agree with them to speak.

Tolerance is allowing the people you don't agree with to speak without interference.

Nazi's can talk of racial this and racial that. None of it is enlightening or true.

But they should be allowed to say it.

When there is too much restriction on speech a culture becomes like this forum with way too many restrictions.

Stale and inbred.

Nazism has been, remains, and will be the exception along with fascism of any variety because the entire point is to subvert those freedoms.

Moral purity is overrated. Expunge the bigot.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-american-atheists-wont-tolerate-intolerance/

The whole nation has become so tolerant of intolerance that actual Nazis are staging large-scale rallies, while millions of Republicans offer rhetorical defense and support.

It's time to point out what should have been obvious: tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Love of hate is not love.

Is it worth asking who defines bigotry?

No it's not. That's one of the doors through which bigotry gains foothold. Tolerance is its own state encompassing a regional sense of morality and peace.

Ideally, yes it is. I've never liked the word tolerance because it's usually nothing more than thinly veiled contempt. It certainly isn't acceptance. The issues cited in the OP article seem to demonstrate this quite nicely.

 

[Vork]

do you hate a group of people and want them to punished, either by a government or mob: Y/N
has that group done anything to you personally in a way you can tangibly articulate convincingly to a disinterested third party: Y/N

if you answered yes to the first question and no to the second question, you're a bigot.

wow... that was hard.

I'm a "bigot" by that definition, but I reject your definition so...

I detest Islamists (political Islam). I want them booted out of the country, which is a kind of "punishment" you would probably think.

Now Islamists have killed millions of people historically. They have brutally oppressed non-Muslims. They *want* to start up doing the same sort of things on a worldwide basis. They actually are still killing and oppressing in various parts of the world. It's not just a fantasy thing. It's really still going on today. Brutal oppression and murder.

But I mean, they haven't done anything to me personally, so I'm a "bigot" for wanting them stopped.

If people are waging a war against you, you don't need to wait until the gun is against your head before you take action.

 

[Vork]

The thing about "not tolerating intolerance", is we aren't just talking about flag-waving genuine neo-Nazis here.

No, if you merely object to things like illegal immigration, or get critical with the Islamic religion, you will have the political left calling you a "bigot" "racist" "xenophobe" etc.

So it's just going to be begging the question whether "intolerance" is a good kind of intolerance or not.

For example, if you're on the political right, you may think being intolerant of illegal immigration is a good kind of intolerance; and so left-wing intolerance of your intolerance is a bad kind of intolerance. (A lot of intolerance going on but I'm guessing people can see what I'm saying.)

Whereas, if you're on the political left, you may think the right-wing intolerance of illegal immigration is a bad kind of intolerance; and so it's a good kind of intolerance not to tolerate it.

But yeah, it all depends on your assumptions doesn't it. Stepping back a bit, the criticism would be that the political left is way too quick to fire off accusations of that nature, and the rhetoric is just used as a weapon to try to silence and smear political opponents, rather than actually trying to win the argument in a civil and democratic way.