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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It isn't the state banning them though, which is the point and yes it's more tolerant because it allows for all opinions and consciences to be satisfied.
Unless you believe that all pubs etc would enforce those bans in which case there is a much bigger issue to face.
Intolerable according to your beliefs. Why should yours hold more weight?
Yep.
But then I would be at the front of the march/protest putting an oposing opinion.
Yes oppressed. I do think that they are intolerant, I think that their views are abhorrent and I think that over the past, god knows how many, years on these boards my views on homophobia and racism are perfectly clear. I happily hunt out those who try to hide their views using expressions with hidden meaning (I am still not convinced that Clandestine isn't anti-semitic), I will happily argue the right of women to choose when faced with anti-abortionists, I will argue against people like Tommo100 (or whatever his name was) who think that racism can be used to motivate people.
I am, however, also the person who had argued against banning obvious racists and homophobes.
It's a shame that you don't remember that perhaps you would see that I tolerate all walks of life. I will just argue with those I disagree with, I don't push for their actions to be banned or made illegal.
On what basis? Why is that less acceptable than the person who blieves that property is theft?
Then you clearly haven't read my previous posts in this thread. Look for the word "violence"...
Erm... have you just proved my point?
Inspite of those laws homophobia still exists. Laws do not change peoples viewpoints.
What attitudes prevailed for the law to be created in the first place?
I couldn't be arsed before, but I figure that as the word continues to be used then I should link to dictionary.com with the definition:
Tolerance Italics mine
1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
Tolerant
1. inclined or disposed to tolerate; showing tolerance
And I'll say it again: as a white man belonging to the mainstream 'native' tribe, perhaps you should put yourself in the skin of others before you see your community as tolerant. Indeed, go ask a black South African if he thought Apartheid South Africa was a tolerant place, what with whites being able to express themselves and ban blacks from shops, hotels and beaches.
Paradise of tolerance that place was eh?
No I don't. But then one such place would be one too many. In a civilised society at least.
And according to yours, I'm sure. And according to the majority of people in this country. You know that as well as I do. Tough fucking luck to the racists and white supremacists. My heart really bleeds for them... :rolleyes:
Yes, and I suppose if you had been around in the 1930s you would have thought those confronted the Naziboys in Cable Street were close minded untolerant idiots as well.
If only a few more close minded intolerant idiots like them had been around in Germany in the late 20s & early 30s, imagine the amount of grief that could have been avoided.
I'm sure you're not ill-intentioned. You just got it, in my humble opinion of course, so shockingly wrong...
Oh please... :rolleyes:
Don't know what you mean there...
You can't fight intolerance with intolerance. All you do is create more intolerance. Did you ever live through times where you have been banned from such places, been properly discriminated against or arrested in the name of so called justice?
My father was banned from pretty much every pub in our area because he was Irish. He also got arrested in the mid 80's for speaking Gaelic because it was against the law. And you can check law books if you don't believe me.
I got shouts of "you little IRA Bomber bastard" on my way to school. Everytime we went anywhere as a family my mum (English) had to speak for us so we didn't get kicked out or accused of planting bombs. I was looked down on by teachers because of my accent (learnt from my father) and my race.
Fighting against intolerance doesn't come with laws, that brings more intolerance. It needs to come from the Community wising up to the bullshit and taking passive action against it. Like someone else said, refuse to deal with said person so that they take a step back and think.
In the way of teachers you think then it's O.K that a conservative teacher can teach children of the upper class that crime is a working class phenomena and it very rarely is the upper class that commit crimes?
This is a conservative core belief. Labour are supposed to believe it's intra-class. Not sure they still do though?
Or that a Liberal teacher can teach that Weed should be legalised?
Teachers from any viewpoint on the political spectrum will try and put their views across in to people as it gets more support for their political parties. If you ban one party's members then you have to ban all and get none political teachers as it is wrong to ban just one party.
Shame then that hypothetical racists and bigots you are defending in the name of tolerance are spitting on the concept of the word by not tolerating the presence of blacks/gays/etc or permitting them entry to their premises.
Like the tolerant racist and bigots show to those they hate by banning them from their premises then...
Of course it matters. If the state is intolerant of one view, then why should it tolerate others?
Of course it wasn't, that is a really poor example to use. Tolerance is all views, not just one section. If anything that is closer to your view than mine.
I agree, but in a truly civilised societythe law would not be needed. That is my point. We don't live in a civilised society because we don't tolerate opposing views and actions.
And thus you confirm that you are intolerant.
Did you read the words I typed because this response suggests that you didn't. Those opposing the cable street march had the right approach, IMHO and it's the one which I am advocating. They didn't ban the Naziboys march they opposed it.
If only a few more close minded intolerant idiots like them had been around in Germany in the late 20s & early 30s, imagine the amount of grief that could have been avoided.
No, come on, you are arguing that someone with a political opinion shouldn't teach kids. I am suggesting that it is irrelevant or it should apply to all. You either tolerate opposing viewpoints or you don't.
The act of child abuse is an act of violence. Different rules should apply there as I said before. The BNP member who physically attacks non-whites should not teach children, not should anyone convicted of sexual offence against children.
Which is my point. The law shouldn't be used like that, it shouldn;t be used to change peoples thoughts.
As with a previous comment. The anti-discrimination laws came after any change in attitude. If they hadn't then they would not have been passed...
Whic
Towards those who are intolerant in the first place.
Presumably we should not jail kidnappers either, seeing as we would only be breeding more of the same...
Oh I believe you perfectly well. In fact I see it as a reinforcement of my argument. Laws are an priceless tool to contain and indeed minimise such incidents. By failing to legislate against such incidents you're only encouraging more of the same.
If only that approach had ever proven to work I might be willing to give it a try.
There are such revolutionary concepts as common sense and realism that can help with this. Discussing the merits and ills of social classes or use of drugs is pefectly normal and acceptable. Believing some races are subhuman and should be kicked out of the country is something quite different.
To be honest it's an indescribably poor and invalid analogy.
And they are wrong IMHO. On the same basis that you are.
But you reaction is to create intolerant laws, mine is for society itself to force the change by it's actions.
Again, violence rule applies.
By using the law you just commit more of the same offences.
That approach is what created anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
Exactly. So why use the law?
Why is debate about racial equality not acceptable?
Oh yeah?
Regardless of being unofficial, there were many parts of South Africa that were a no-go area to whites. So there you have it. A country where every racist and bitter person can ban others based on their colour of their skin. A paradise of tolerance apparently.
There is no such thing as a truly tolerant society, and arguably there will never be- not in 1 million years.
Where laws can help is to make societies as tolerant as possible, by leading the way in showing unnaceptable racist and bigoted actions will not be tolerated.
Though no more than a country that allow them to put up the 'no darkies' sign outside a hotel.
Er... they tried to have the march banned, and when it was allowed to happen they met them half way to stop them by force from marching through their streets. I'd say they'd support my position alirght
That's well beyond somone with just a political opinion and you know it. That's dangerous extremism and someone who thinks that way shouldn't be let near children. Just as a convicted child sex offender shouldn't. It is quite possible that many paedos and many BNP members will self-discipline themselves enough to be safe around children and to treat them fairly. But you just don't let them take such positions just in case.
A person who thinks people of other races are inferior and should be kicked out of the country has some serious issues that are outside normal and acceptable parameters.
You can tolerate them in most work positions because they are working with adults.
But I don't find it unreasonable to want to bar them from working with children who by nature are very vulnerable and manipulable.
But it's not use to change their thoughts. Nobody is saying they must stop thinking they way they think. They are simply told they cannot act on their beliefs and discriminate against others.
Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Often laws are passed against significant popular skepticism if not opposition. And after a few years the law has been in place society becomes more accepting of it.
I don't see how tbh.
Because some people lack it.
Same could be said to any other law really. If everyone was really nice to each other there wouldn't be a need for laws at all.
In the case of BNP members, because their position is an abomination, ecause they cannot be trusted to discuss the matter fairly or to even treat children of the races they hate so much fairly, and because there is potential for lifetime damage caused to a child who is brainwashed into the doctrine of racism.
It can? :eek:
So why are protests outside of Parliament banned these days?
Only one was protected by the law... and had the state to enforce it.
Indeed because there is always someone around who wants to ban the actions of another because they don;t conform to his views. So tell me, which of use perpetuates such a society?
Surely you contradict yourself in that sentence.
Not so. That country is tolerant in extremis, because it allows both views to prevail and doesn;t discriminate against only one of them.
Thank you for the correction. Then it was the state who were right in the first instance because it didn't ban one political message from being aired but rather allowed both.
No it isn't. Being a member of a political party is just that.
Why not? Aren;t children allowed to hear opinions which are dissenting from yours?
1. By definition a paedophile cannot control themselves around children.
2. So, no crime committed but you would ban someone "just in case". Cool, lets lock up all Muslims just in case they are terrorists, or all Irish Catholics "just in case" they a IRA members..
Why not? Why is it right for a teacher to hold one political viewpoint and not another?
Why is it okay for these vulnerable and manipulable people to be exposed to communist views but not racist ones? Surely they should be exposed to both... don;t they have the right to make up their own minds? Isn;t it that kind of thinking which leads to Palestinians children being taught that jews are sub-human - because there is no dissenting view taught to them?
What you are saying is that people should not be allowed to act in accordance with their conscience.
So are you for banning anti-Govt marches then? That is a matter of conscience too...
Or the Govt has been overthrown and the law abolished - like slavery for example...
Was it the Govt which wanted equality, or the people?3
Considered by you, wrong in your opinion
My point about why the laws came about in the first place is because there was public opinion backing the view that discrimination shouldn't happen.
I agree it is, so argue the point.
Whereas Unions are known for their open and honest approach are they? Don't make me laugh.
Is your argument so weak that you don't think that children can understand it?
Then you become the intolerant biggot.
That's not being intolerant, That's called common sense. You don't breed kidnappers from locking up kidnappers.
So banning a language IN LAW is O.K then is it? Now who's intolerant? I know, why don't we make it illegal to speak Urdu and Arabic while we're at it?
Why don't we just make it illegal to speak any other language than English? Great show of fucking tolerance!!
To say you hate the Far Rights intolerant views so much you just put one across quite well.
Well I don't get shouts of you "little IRA Bomber Bastard" anymore and can actually buy a bus or train ticket without people looking at me like I'm gonna pull out a gun and shoot them or throw a bomb on and run. Where's the law that says "You must not discriminate against Irish people."? And don't quote the bloody EU human rights act as that was about in the 80's and it didn't stop people. It was about in the 90's and it didn't stop people.
How is it invalid? Because you agree with instilling the class divide?
Because you think the use of Drugs is O.K?
Bollocks! If someone teaches my kids that crime is only a working class phenomena I will be knocking em all over the classroom. No kid o mine will ever learn that crime only works one way. It works both, always has and always will.
If someone teaches my kids that doing drugs is acceptable and normal I will make sure they are receiving drugs for months afterwards, mainly morphine. All Drugs (Including Alcohol) kill more in a year than any Racists do.
The analogy isn't poor and is perfectly valid. You just don't want to admit you are wrong.
Considered wrong in the majority of the public, voted for in a democratic system, which is how any law is (should be) passed in this country. I notice you conveniently fail to answer the question Aladdin poses, which I think is the most important one considering your argument. If certain values exist among the majority of society which lead to these laws, then what is the point of any law ever? Unless you're proposing the same free market system that I remember Klintock proposing once upon a time, where criminals are not actively punished (after all, that would be intolerant of what they believed to be right), simply ignored by everyone else, and not be able to interact with anyone else as a result, then you agree in principle that laws voted in by the majority and enforced by the government are a good thing? Otherwise, you'd have no problem with there being no laws against anything that the majority agree to be wrong?
Which in your book I'm sure has to be more tolerant than a country where white racists cannot ban darkies from entry...
It doesn't perpetuate anything. If anything, it betters and refines them. As decades and centuries past, many things that were considered acceptable are no longer so. And sometimes it's the government that makes the first step.
Not really. If we don't tolerate intolerance we're simply cancelling a negative.
The one thing you have consistently failed to appreciate, whether puposedly or not, is that by allowing racists and bigots to do anything they want we make a country far more intolerant, no less. Certainly for those amongst us who are not white or straight for instance.
A country that allows premises to ban people based on the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation is the ultimate dictionary definition of intolerance.
The only thing tolerated is intolerance.
Are you going all Klintock on me or something???
But I wasn't talking about the State in that instance was I? I was talking about that bunch of unreasonable intolerant people who stopped the Naziboys in their tracks by force. A despicable action that was, presumably...
But the BNP is not just a political party. The BNP is outside the political spectrum. They are an ultra right wing racist fascist movement.
In fact, if you're looking for examples of tolerance, there isn't a bigger one that allowing them to exist legally. That is tolerance.
Not when it is dangerous extremism and racism, no.
I can't believe you would even consider otherwise.
Not true. The definition of a paedophile is one who is sexually attracted to children. They don't always act on those desires.
Nice analogy... not.
Would you allow a known paedophile but one who had not been convicted of ever touching a child become the teacher of your children?
Because the 'other' one is far more than just a 'viewpoint'. It's an abomination that goes against the very fabric of society and the very survival and progress of the human race.
See above.
Oh they should be studying racism and fascism alright. But not taught by someone who actually subscribes to that unhuman filth.
It's nothing to do with exposing children to different viewpoints. It's to do with the teacher subscribing to a set of beliefs that, as explained above ad infinitum, is beyond and outside all other beliefs and viewpoints. Such person is simply not qualified to teach children, any more than a paedophile is.
Is it really that difficult a concept to grasp?
Not necessarily. Only when it prejudices others.
My conscience tells me neocons or religious fundamentalists of any creed and all are bad people. And yet I would not turn one from my business if I had one.
That is the definition of tolerance. Not such people banning those they hate and the state allowing them to do so.
A bit of both, though I'd say without Lincoln it would had not happened for many years yet.
Considered by the great majority of people.
You can't please everybody all the time. The needs and wants of the many etc etc...
Such is life.
Not always. On many occasions large parts of the population were certainly indifferent.
You know, or should know or at least imagine that if anti-discrimination employment laws had not come to pass there would be a lot more discrimination in the workplace today.
That is just one example of cases where the law needs to make a stand rather than wait for individuals to change their minds- some of whom simply never will.
I thought I had already, extensively.
Then again Unions are not in the business of supporting racism and fascism.
Are you trying to suggest children cannot be brainwashed and manipulated?
Really???
Hopefully you will tolerate my interjections on a personal question ?
(I found myself agreeing with much of what MoK has said, and I hope he can tolerate that
From all the evidence available to me, I`d conclude that a(ny) law is an opinion enforced by unlimited violence. (If you feel that I`ve reached an incorrect conclusion, feel free to correct me . . . with evidence of course).
Is it that "will of the majority" thinking that prevents any individual enforcing his/her opinion with violence ?
This "will of the people" is seemingly worshipped as a god and called democracy.
Personally, I see no difference (save in the spelling) between democracy and ochlocracy.
Both appear to conclude that if your gang is big enough it is acceptable to enforce the mob/majority opinion with violence.
On occasion that conclusion has brought on a bout of intolerance.
What on earth are you on about?
Er... there are laws already to protect individuals against such discriminations.
You should put yourself in a gay person's skin, or an Asian's. Perhaps you'd see things differently. You certainly would if people were suddenly allowed to ban fagg ots and pa kis from their shops.
Bollocks.
How many cases have you heard of teachers teaching such things?
None, that's how many.
And that's because people who hold views on class divide or drug use can still be trusted upon doing their job and teaching their children fairly.
A person who believes some races are inferior to others and should actually be kicked out of the country cannot be trusted any more around children than a paedophile would.
Comprende?
I'm rather amused by the view that it achieved anything. Facism in Europe was stopped by real battles (the kind where people die in agony trying to hold their intestines in) rather than a few people chucking stones at the police.
And evidently resurrected in the polling booths ?
Started in pooling booths p'haps - I've yet to see its ressurection.
I guess it depends on your definition,as usual.
I went to the apparent creator, "Il Duce" and what he considered it to be.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
Without wishing to read the whole article do you want to tell me where its been ressurected...
"Almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’ " - George Orwell
I see intolerance everywhere
I'm unsure of your argument - are you saying that facism = intolerance.
In that case it not Mussolini's defenition and I'm not sure why you quote him (and to be honest it also stretches the defenition of fascism so wide as for it to become meaningless)
Orwell also said that !
I tend to agree, as is the case with any abstractions.
Words are like empty vessels that you can fill with anything you like.
If you don`t give a full list of ingredients, then misunderstanding is a probable result.
And even if you did, there would be no guarantees.
(I didn`t see the ingredients in post 113
I notice the Blackshirts didn't do very well and came to an end not long afterwards.
Anyone who fails to be moved by citizens of different races, religions, ethnic backgrounds and political affiliations uniting against that scum need to rethink things a little. We certainly could do with that spirit nowadays.
Regardless of arguing about the ultimate meaning of the term 'tolerance' surely anyone can see that allowing people, for instance, to hang up signs banning entrance to those of other races or sexual orientation would have a devastating effect on society and the country as a whole.
But no matter. Even if there are years of unrest, destruction and misery, the advocates of this concept of 'ultimate tolerance' could sit on top of the smoldering ruins of a burnt building for a good vantage point and and think 'oh isn't it nice to live in such tolerant place'.