Today I've Learned...

[AFK]

That some "Discordians" can't tolerate dissenting points of view.


Discuss.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.

[AFK]

I think I heard a Christian say that very thing once when talking about gay rights.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I think I heard a murder-rapist say their opinions should be tolerated.

[Reginald Ret]

Lets make a distinction between:

Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.

And 'ought to be violently opposed.' Which is what i think RWHN means when he says 'can't tolerate.'
All forms of nonviolent opposition to points of view are good, save the actual violence for acts.

[AFK]

Yes.  It is incredibly disheartening to see Discordians get SO bent out of shape in discussions, I'm not just talking about this one, I include the drug threads, the libertarian threads, the piracy threads...


We can't ever agree to disagree after a good, and yes, passioned discussion.  We need to blow the minority opinion out of the water and make sure it is never heard again.  That's why we have "verboten topics", because minority opinions are simply not tolerated by some. 


I think that is a damn shame and is something we are supposed to be against, not embracing with open arms. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Yay!  We're Calvinists!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So what we now have are purists alienating people who are/could be allies, because the ally in question does not accept (or perhaps does not understand) the ENTIRE concept in all of its details.  So rather than try to explain the concept, or accept that the person is an ally without that one concept in place, the person must be driven out of the fold, for the encouragement of the others.

Well done.

[Richter]

I think I heard a murder-rapist say their opinions should be tolerated.

An opinion and an action are two different things. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.

Yeah.  "I keep my wife in line" would be one of those.

In THIS case, however, you are mercilessly mocking, raging, and viciously satirizing people who disagree on one fine point of a larger argument.

It's become a fucking religion.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Yay!  We're Calvinists!

Yay! We're removing sentences from their context so they mean something else!

[Luna]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Yay!  We're Calvinists!

Yay! We're removing sentences from their context so they mean something else!

Not at all.  The point was made that a point of view that is repulsive to one may be what someone else needs to live a decent life.

Someone may hold a particular point of view that you, personally find repulsive...  However, to that person, YOUR point of view may be equally repulsive.

Who gets to decide what opinions should be "tolerated?"

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Yay!  We're Calvinists!

Yay! We're removing sentences from their context so they mean something else!

Not at all.  The point was made that a point of view that is repulsive to one may be what someone else needs to live a decent life.

Someone may hold a particular point of view that you, personally find repulsive...  However, to that person, YOUR point of view may be equally repulsive.

Who gets to decide what opinions should be "tolerated?"

Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.

I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.

So the logical conclusion to your question of "Who gets to decide what opinions should be tolerated?" would be each person for themselves.

[Suu]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Yay!  We're Calvinists!

Yay! We're removing sentences from their context so they mean something else!

Not at all.  The point was made that a point of view that is repulsive to one may be what someone else needs to live a decent life.

Someone may hold a particular point of view that you, personally find repulsive...  However, to that person, YOUR point of view may be equally repulsive.

Who gets to decide what opinions should be "tolerated?"

Toleration and dislike are two very different things.

I have to live in a country with Republicans. I have to TOLERATE their opinion because it surrounds me, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Verbal Mike]

Umm, on the off chance that this thread is about me telling RWHN to fuck off and die:
That was my response to his dancing around the main point and poking everything a couple of us wrote, repeatedly, without actually stating his point, which he has since done and which I have responded to calmly. For a while there it was just "the way you're stating your argument doesn't make sense, because I disagree with how you use the word 'enjoy' or 'privilege'".

So whether or not this thread is actually about my fuck off and die comment, I actually have no idea what RWHN is talking about. People do, and are allowed to, get frustrated in a discussion and have emotional outbursts. People can also continue arguing a point when they sense someone is not understanding it. Note that a few people have ducked out of the discussion and mostly been left alone (except by people who were personally hurt, which is another story). But RWHN insisted on continuing to go back and forth without actually getting to the point, and the response to that (by me and perhaps others) is somehow intolerance?

Whatever. It's become apparent that RWHN has his own definition for all kinds of words, so literally lacking a common language, I will not take exchanges with him too seriously.