If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Tolerance- an apology
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I have always believed, and often expressed, that we should show zero tolerance to acts of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, racism or homophobia against individuals or groups. My view was that the perpetrators of such acts were the intolerant people and that it was the duty of any civilised society to ensure such things did not happen.
However, in view of various discussions in recent weeks I have come to realise I was wrong. After giving careful thought to the matter over the weekend I have concluded that a tolerant society should in fact allow anybody to be as prejudiced or bigoted to others based on their sexuality, religion, colour of skin, nationality or indeed anything else that might bother them as they damn like.
I therefore would like to apologise profusely for my past intolerant and unacceptable beliefs. I would also like to declare that from now on I shall fully support the right of anyone to ban people from shops, hotels and other premises and to deny them services based on their religion, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or any other issue.
More than that, I will actively fight for their right to do so.
And I will do so because I now realise that a country where blacks can be banned from hotels; where gays are told they cannot eat at a restaurant because they are AIDS-ridden filthy abominations; where shopkeepers can hang swastikas from their shop windows and bar subhuman hooknose Jews from entry; where pub landlords tell Irish scum they're no welcome; where golf courses put up a sign that reads 'no dogs or women'; where football fans can freely chant to each other 'you're just a town full of pa kis'; where political parties state that every single member of Muslim religion is a violent wife beating terrorist who cannot be considered British and must be kicked out of the country; or where landlords can evict people from their houses if they are found to be Catholic/Protestant/atheist, would not only be the dictionary definition of a tolerant society, but also a very pleasant place to live indeed.
Thank you for opening my eyes
However, in view of various discussions in recent weeks I have come to realise I was wrong. After giving careful thought to the matter over the weekend I have concluded that a tolerant society should in fact allow anybody to be as prejudiced or bigoted to others based on their sexuality, religion, colour of skin, nationality or indeed anything else that might bother them as they damn like.
I therefore would like to apologise profusely for my past intolerant and unacceptable beliefs. I would also like to declare that from now on I shall fully support the right of anyone to ban people from shops, hotels and other premises and to deny them services based on their religion, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or any other issue.
More than that, I will actively fight for their right to do so.
And I will do so because I now realise that a country where blacks can be banned from hotels; where gays are told they cannot eat at a restaurant because they are AIDS-ridden filthy abominations; where shopkeepers can hang swastikas from their shop windows and bar subhuman hooknose Jews from entry; where pub landlords tell Irish scum they're no welcome; where golf courses put up a sign that reads 'no dogs or women'; where football fans can freely chant to each other 'you're just a town full of pa kis'; where political parties state that every single member of Muslim religion is a violent wife beating terrorist who cannot be considered British and must be kicked out of the country; or where landlords can evict people from their houses if they are found to be Catholic/Protestant/atheist, would not only be the dictionary definition of a tolerant society, but also a very pleasant place to live indeed.
Thank you for opening my eyes
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
There's a difference between banning people from hurting others thrugh intolerance and being prejudiced towards people because of their political affliation.
Not everything is black and white.
I never said I condone racism, I'm an activist too (and a human rights student) and dislike it immensely, but let's be fair Aladdin, you come across as just as intolerant too sometimes. People are entitled to private political beliefs and there's a difference in holding racist views and comitting an act of genocide.
Just because you're not racist or homophobic does not mean your shit doesn't stink (sorry, not jus aimed at anyone in particular), I'm sure we're all mature enough here to know that there are no absolute right and wrongs. By being an activist you are not being intolerant of people, but of acts of intolerance. The rest is about education, compassion and community work.
No one can claim to be completely indiscrimanate and tolerant of everything, so nothing is that black and white. It's a case of society being reasonable and finding enough space for everyones expression with some bound of reason.
All I have ever said was that acting on certain 'beliefs' should indeed be outlawed when such actions discriminate unfairly against others.
So it would seem that you and I agree on this
And have I ever said otherwise?
However many people on this very board have repeteadly said they would like people to be able to (for instance) ban black people or gays from their premises.
Which leads me to this thought: do you think that the hypothetical country I imagined in my opening post would be more "tolerant" than a country where there are laws that protect individuals from discrimination because of the colour of their skin, their religious beliefs, their nationality, their gender?
Think carefully about that...
What`s that idiom I`m trying to remember ?
You can lead a blindman to specsavers but you can`t make him see.
Such as your hate-folled anti-religious diatribe, yeah? Oh, I forget, its fine to abuse religious people because they don't agree with you.
You just want anyone who disagrees with you to be banned. At least be honest about it.
If you don't want your views banned you shouldn't be advocating the banning of others. Otherwise you might just find that when the wind changes, you'll be shafted.
Me too, right up to the last paragraph!
I've suggested that discriminatory ACTION should be outlawed.
If you cannot tell the difference between the words 'view' and 'action' it's really not my problem. There are online dictionaries you can consult.
It seems to me, you are advocating that INACTION be outlawed.
As far as I can recall I've pretty much agreed with you on issues of tolerance in the past. I know we shared the same view on the Catholic adoption row.
It makes me laugh - because it's happened to me also - when people try to tar you with the frothy-mouthed evangelical atheist brush. It's far easier to erect a straw-man whose only motive is a deep held hatred of religion, than address the entrenched bigotry which is so patently evident in a lot of religious doctrine.
I've never heard you speak out against people's right to hold odious views; like me you appear to believe that only when odious views lead to odious action is it time to sit up and take notice.
So unlike the straw man argument repeated ad nauseum about what would we do if it was the Church arguing against blacks....
And the point about the adoption law debate was not about whether or not the Catholic church is religous bigots (they are), or whether they even have biblical support for their belief (depends which religous scholar you ask), but whether the state has the right to overule freedom of conscience and belief.
That at the end of the day is what people are defending.
Aladdin, you have called for the banning of this and the banning of that so often its become tiring. You just want everyone to think like you do and want the law to criminalise anyone who dares to express an opinion that is different to yours. You want neo-cons banned, you want religious views banned, you want racist views banned. Life isn't like that, and life shouldn;t be like that.
At least be honest about your motives. You don't want people to be homophobic and racist (something I don't disagree with) and think that outlawing everything is the solution. It wasn't for McCarthy and it isn't now. You're advocating McCarthyism and you don't care because its your views that are in the mainstream now.
You can't legislate unpleasant views away, and trying just makes you look like a tyrant.
What I'm defending is Aladdin's right - and my own - to criticise religion without being painted as some rabid, wide-eyed, anti-religion fanatic. There's nothing special about religion which means it should stand outside of rational debate and criticism.
As for overruling freedom of conscience and belief: I believe that in a secular state, when religious doctrine and practice starts affecting the lives of non-religious types, then yes, the government needs to prick its ears up and take notice.
We didn't agree then about the adoption row, and I suspect nothing's changed!
He's never suggested legislating certain views away, he's suggested legislating against certain actions that discriminate against others. I can't believe you still can't understand the difference after about three threads on the issue.
I think you're the ones painting yourselves as anti-religous zealots. See Kermits post above where he makes the point its nothing to do with people agreeing with a religous belief. I'm not a Catholic, I'm not sure whether God exists or not. The only way I'm going to be sure I'm not keen on trying out just yet...
Technically we're not a secular state (head of state is also head of Church of England and Scotland) and that position is by law denied to people of a certain religion or if they marry into that religion.
However it also goes both ways. Neither the abortion debate or the adoption debate really made any affect on others - you can go to a non-Catholic adoption agency or have an abortion clinic outside Harley Street. What you are advocating is a moral belief on others who do not share that belief (and it is irrelevant whether you get that moral view through religion or from your own atheistic beliefs).
I suspect not, but hopefully it gives everyone food for thought (now that's the benefits of proper tolerance)
But not all, I suspect.
Oh, come on dude, you can't deny that attempts have been made to portray Aladdin, and myself to a lesser extent, as anti-religous zealots. I believe these claims have been deliberately purported to try deflect the issue away from criticism of religion.
Technically London cabbies have to carry a bail of hay around with them as well; whatever archaic laws are still knocking about regarding figure-head positions are irrelevant. We are a secular state for all intents and purposes.
We're just not going to agree on this point. You appear to believe that as long as alternatives are available when bigotry and discrimination occurs, then there is no need for intervention; I don't think that's right at all.
Tolerating someone else's views has never been in question. It's their actions I'm concerned with.
There isn't a difference, other than semantics.
Aladdin has made it perfectly clear that he thinks that a law will stop people holding those views. That's his motive for banning it. That's why there is very little difference.
There is no dofference between banning an opinion and banning any way of expressing that opinion.
Forcing the Harley Street landlord to have abortions on her property has nothing to do with protecting women, its about legislating someone into behaving against their moral code. It's the same with the adoption row. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything with Aladdin wanting to force his view of the world on everyone else through legislation.
You lot fucking scare me. Those who want the BNP banned are no better than McCarthy, and you'll get the government you deserve. I just hope I'm nowhere near it when you do.
Are you also concerned to the same level with their INACTIONS ?
It's funny how those who say I'm really really disrespectful for showing my contempt for organised religion are those same posters who say people should have the right to be prejudiced towards others
It is funny. I'm not going to force you to go to Church every day, and I'm not advocating forcing you to believe. It's a real shame you can't extend the same courtesy to others.
Of course freedoms should be restricted if they impact on others. But nine times out of ten they don't. The big abortion providers aren't on Harley Street, and never have been. The only gay man who would go to the Catholics would be one wanting to prove a political point. It's interesting how the same man who demands that the Church gives babies to gays is completely against the smoking legislation, though. Anyone would think Aladdin only cares about what he thinks, as if his word is law.
- I have never said I want to ban neocons
- I have never said I want to ban religious views
- I have never said I want any views banned at all, apart from cases when they are inciting to racial hatred or amounting to slander. Incidentally this is the official and legal position of this country
Either you and anyone else produce, once and for all, even a single quote of mine when I have said I want to ban religious views, or stop making things up.
And yet again, WHEN have I EVER suggested views should be legislated against?
Organised religion should be legally allowed to think gays are an evil abomination. Racist people should be legally allowed to think other races are unworthy or inferior. Paedophiles should be legally allowed to believe Etc Etc.
What I have called for is for such people not take discriminatory ACTION against anyone simply because they happen to believe they are deserving of one. If a pub landlord believes black people are scum, let him believe so. But don't let him put a sign saying 'darkies not welcome'.
Can't you really tell the difference between the two?
Stop making things up.
would be more tolerant than a country (let's call it country
If so, your definition of tolerance is rather bizarre one.
Oh, no doubt racists and bigots in country A (i.e. a minority) would think their nation was a haven of tolerance. Why don't you try asking gays being turned away from hotels or Jews being barred from entry into shops if they think country A is tolerant?
In country B racists and bigots would be unable to take prejudicial action against those groups they dislike. But the majority of the population would be living in a place where they can go out safe in the knowledge that they would be welcomed and served (even if through gritted teeth) in bars, shops, restaurants and hotels amongst other things and where there would be no signs banning them because of what they are.
Anyone who thinks country A is more tolerant than B needs their head examined, quite frankly.
You want the BNP banned and you want anyone who is a member of the BNP to be sacked. You've said that before. You don't want the BNP banned for any reason other than you don't like their views.
I don't think the Government should be telling us what to think, and that we can only act in ways approved by them. It's no different to McCarthyism, and you know its not.
I haven't got a clue what you're on about above. Too many drugs?