Does being intolerant of the intolerant make you the same?
 

I was thinking about this last night. Does being intolerant of the intolerant make you the same as them or is it progress?

Well, yeah, it is...
One of the definitions of Intolerant is:
Don't you love how they use the word you are trying to get a definition of, in the defintion?

anyhow -Intolerant is basically not accepting someone elses opinion. So by not tolerating (accepting) someone else's intolerance (not accepting), by definition, that makes a person intolerant.

*head spins * too much thinking so early in the morning.... but Mal's got it right.

It depends on your perspective. If you believe that the ends justify the means, then yes, intolerance can be progress. It also makes you intolerant. If anything, though, this just means that it is a gross oversimplification to believe that tolerance, or most anything else for that matter, is automatically negative.

Depends how you think of it. Intolerance of the intolerant is technically intolerance, but intolerance in many respects socially is limited to prejudiced intolerance towards others. Being intolerant towards intolerant people is not prejudice.

This seems to be going along the same lines as people who hate homophobes. Its a strange twist in that you start to dislike and disagree with the person so much that you could be considered very similar to them.

I like when left wingers talk about how tolerant they are, then rant about how anyone who doesn't hate Bush is a far-right nazi bible-thumping fundie asshole. I've called a few out on that, the standard response is "the ONLY thing I don't tolerate is intolerance" or "well that's different, Bush is gonna kill us all and destroy America, so it's justified in that case".

Sorry, that doesn't fly. You're either tolerant or you're not. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to be intolerant, be forthcoming about it. At least conservatives will generally admit it, rather than trying to spin their dislike of opposing viewpoints into meaning they're accepting of everybody.

I once heard a guy say, "I just hate prejudiced people. If I even think that somebody is prejudiced, I just totally hate them and can't stand being around them."

Sadly, he didn't get the irony.

Yes and no. I have a dislike for intolerance. However, I do not rant about, judge, or put down those who are intolerant. What I mean is this for example: my sister is a right wing, extremely judgemental Christian. I do not appreciate her judgements; however I do not make issue of them -- I tolerate them as part of who she is. She, on the other hand, judges me, tries to convert me, and is totally intolerant of my point of view. When I say, "I honor your right to believe what you believe and would appreciate you honoring my right to do the same," she replies, "but with your beliefs you will go to hell and that makes me sad." I'm not sure she is correct as Jesus even said "judge not lest you be judged." It is difficult to walk away from her intolerance; however, I usually respond with "thanks for sharing your opinion of my life." And I don't "tolerate" any more conversation on the subject -- I walk away -- but I do not consider this intolerance of her, rather protecting of myself. What do you think?

(BTW -- I think it is inhertantly human to hold certain believes to be true. We are a "judgemental people." Some judgements are liberal and some conservative -- but we all make judgements. After all, isn't that how we decide what we like to eat, who we'd like to marry, who to vote for, etc.?)

There's nothing wrong with forming an educated opinion based on facts and reason, if these happen to condemn an existing point of view so be it. Intolerant seems to suggest that you disagree with people simply because their views aren't like yours, rather than you genuinely understanding their position and still disagreeing.

Conservatives have their own ways of spinning things...

Though i agree that many people fail to see the irony in being intolerant of intolerance. I don't think intolerance is by definition a problematic philosophy. The problem is that people are intolerant of things that i'm tolerant of.;)

It takes one to know one, I'd say. Is it being hypocrytical? I'd say yes.

I say, stop worrying about semantics. Just be accepting of everybody who is accepting of you. You don't owe a thing to those who aren't.

I aree with Mal.
 

The secret to tolerance is compromise, and compassion... :)

Intolerance of intolerance is technically intolerance. But in the context of society, intolerance usually refers to irrational intolerance, when there is no reason, such as racism, sexism, prejudice against cultures, etc. Few tolerant people would say that they're tolerant of crime, or tolerant of violence, because those are wise accepted to be bad things.

Tolerance is an idea that is rooted in compassion. If you fail to show compassion to those who are intolerant, then I'd say you are the same. What does that mean? It means understanding why they feel the way they do(and disagreeing about it), not calling them morons, or backwards idiots, etc.. and not hating them. Being without hate is the most important thing

my 2 cents

So did we decide tht it is wrong for me to hate people that hate people?

That just means you're intolerant of hateful people. But as someone said, there is good intolerance and bad intolerance. If you're like me, you just read my last sentence and went 'wuzzuh?' but that is what seems to be being said.
I'm with the group who doesn't understand why if you don't agree with a certain group's belief system, say homosexuality, you're labelled as intolerant. But those who do not tolerate intolerance are therefore intolerant themselves. Actually I think the only time you're justified in being intolerant is if you're intolerant of crazy radical Christians and their out-to-lunch opinions, like absolute truth. (Note: tongue firmly planted in cheek)

To me, intolerance is something that is amoral and requires an analysis of the situation before a judgement can be applied.

For example, are you intolerant of child rapists or of black people?

I think we can all agree that it is ok to be intolerant of the first and not the second.

So like most things, it devolves into deciding what we are intolerant of and why.

I would say that those that are intolerant and hateful towards other hateful people still debase themselves to no purposeful end. When faced in situations of hate, it's better to understand the reasons why someone would act in that manner, and act accordingly.

From Lebell's post, I think that a fine line exists between the certain moral concepts that individuals share and certain societal rules / laws that protect people from other people. Child rapists are not tolerated primarily because their actions drastically affect volunerable youth, not because they hold a different set of values. In that sense, compassion is first directed to the child and due to that there cannot be much left for the rapist. For that reason amorality should not be applied so generally, because every individual has different moral views.