OT: tolerance (was Re: Attachment test.)

[Kenneth Brody]

On 3/22/2010 11:46 PM, Fairlight wrote:
[...]
> The case for arguing against zero tolerance is amusing to me in general.

I'm not sure what that means.

> I
> find it amusing when people argue for tolerance in general, really.  People
> -love- to spout off about tolerance this, tolerance that...until they run
> into someone who's intolerant.  Then these tolerance preaching folk show
> their true colours when they're demonstrably entirely intolerant of the
> intolerant.  Which point makes them instant hypocrites and tanks their
> credibility.  I find myself incredibly suspicious of people that actively
> preach any kind of tolerance, since most brands of tolerance are tantamount
> to, "Tolerate everyone--as long as they're doing things in a way we find
> acceptable."

What's wrong with "you have a right to be stupid/ignorant/racist/whatever, 
and to think and say your stupid/ignorant/racist/whatever things, but I have 
a right to call you out on it, and point out in excruciating detail just how 
stupid/ignorant/racist/whatever you really are"?

> I avoid the hypocrisy and just speak my mind on any given point.  I can
> be flat-out -intolerant-, and while it might be unpopular and unpolitic,
> I can't be called a hypocrite when I need to express my displeasure with
> something.  Up-front intolerance is a far more honest approach, IMNSHO.
> It's also probably healthier, as you don't have to hide anything or bottle
> things up--you speak your mind and move on.

I don't think you need to worry about anyone on this list calling you 
"politically correct".

-- 
Kenneth Brody