Tolerant Of The Intolerant?

[Kimmy]

How is it best to defeat intolerance?

I do not believe it can be defeated.

Is meeting intolerance with more intolerance the answer?

Not for me.

Does tolerating intolerance undermine the goals of tolerance?

In my opinion, it strengthens it.

Is advocating "tolerance" while purposefully being intolerant of a groups belief's hypocrisy?

Yes.

"I support tolerance, but only if you think like me" is this really tolerance?

No. If you believe something, you do not need to 'tolerate' it because you already accept it.

[Hyper Real]

I support tolerant people.

[HHolmquist]

I am compelled to cite the follow up article you posted Mr. Gray with this excerpt from it: "Keith Golden, commissioner for the state Department of Transportation, wrote the chapter's secretary that officials determined the mountain roadway, with a speed limit of 65 mph, was not a safe place for cleanup volunteers to work."

If then at any time in the future permission is granted for any other group or individual to adopt and clean that section of the highway I would think attorneys for the KKK chapter would remind the DOT of that statement. They would more than likely do so in the form of an injunction or civil suit, either of which they would have every right to file.

The statement I made above should clearly state my views of support for this issue even though I do not advocate for the principles of the KKK in general. I also agree with Dan56 and his statement on this topic. Such an act would help dispel the current view of the nonconstructive image of this organization.

[Dorian Gray]

Looks the the ACLU is looking it to taking up the KKK's cause.

"We know this is unpopular," she admits, but if her organization helps the International Keystone Knights of the KKK, it is not because it agrees with their beliefs. It will be based on legal precedent and a legal view of whether the KKK's freedom of speech has been violated.

Now that is tolerance!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/georgia-kkk-highway/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

[Tallmike]

And who will determine what is unacceptable? The liberals? The conservatives? The Christians (which Christians?)? The Atheists? The Pagans? Only the men folk? How about only the women folk? Shall we campaign like we elect a president and vote on it?

What's wrong with individuals? All these labels, I don't know about you but none of them really fit me well

[simplicitys-brother]

I tolerate things that lead to better survival for the largest number of dynamics even though they may not be my favorite things to do.

I try to correct those tings that harm the greatest number of dynamics.

I have a large tolerance for those who make a single simple mistake, I abhor those who commit crimes or continue to make the same stupid mistakes when they should have found a better way.

[kokigami]

Looks the the ACLU is looking it to taking up the KKK's cause.

Now that is tolerance!

http://www.cnn.com/2...html?hpt=hp_bn1

gotta love the ACLU. The real problem I see is that posting a sign saying the KKK is going to pick up the garbage on the highway is an invitation to some folk to litter the highway. Not that I condone that behavior, I just recognize that it is likely to happen. Which is a shame. It is probably the reason that the Missouri KKK got kicked out of the program.

[Atwater Vitki]

Yep, it's a sticky issue. I'm actually a bit surprised, but pleased, to see the support for the Rights of the KKK, an organization that has traditionally taken away the Rights of others. It's good to see that an attempt has been made for tolerance of the intolerant.

It is only Right we remain focused on the facts of a government agency using their own policies against a particular, unpopular group.

As for what "HH" posted above, the safety issue, at least here in California areas that are "unsafe" are clearly marked on the DOT maps of roadways and only Cal-Trans is allowed to do trash clean up and repair work there. I'm sure it must be the same in Georgia. Unless the Georgia State DOT can show this area was listed as hazardous prior to the KKK application, then once again they are just blowing smoke signals up the publics' collective chimneys.

I'm all for everyone's Rights being allowed without hindrance by any govt agency, but this issue is multi-layered and has several underlying issues involved with it. And this exact point is where "Civil Rights" becomes a rather un-civil issue. People/groups who have historically not allowed others to live a life free of harassment and harm, demanding their Right to live free of harassment and harm. People that say other particular races are bad and should be "exterminated", denying them the most basic Right to Life, are the first to pull the "I have Rights!" card.

In yakkin' over the fence to my neighbor yesterday we touched on this subject. On a personal note he could also see the odd resemblance between a draw-string "Stretch-Flex™" garbage bag and the accepted uniform of a particular group. Some might snicker at his comment...."are we to assume they'll remove all the pre-bagged trash from the roadway?" and in a historical sense of how they've acted in the past, I think it applies.

Much like a recovering addict has to prove themselves before they regain the trust of family and friends, I think the KKK needs to do the same here. Before they go spouting off about their "Rights" to pick up trash, how about they first show they can allow others...their Rights?? To me, this is the same as allowing a fox into hen-pen because it "has the Right" to not be impeded in it's pursuit of happiness....something just ain't RIGHT here.

If the KKK can demonstrate and prove they have "changed their ways" and no longer disallow others their Rights to Life, Liberty and Happiness after 160 years of not doing so, then stamp that application "Approved" without delay.

Blessings of Peace,

[BrDevon]

Even speaking as one who a Klansman would want nothing to do with, I support their rights to be who they are - at least to a point. I obviously do not condone acts of terror or anything that would injure another person bodily or by means of destruction of property. That being said, no one should be forced to like me or associate with me. If someone chooses not to wish to associate with me due to factors completely beyond my control, that is their choice and their right. They are not hurting me, they are not wishing me harm, they simply wish to not associate with people of my particular demographic/heritage/race/....

It may come as a shock to some that I have no problem with someone not wanting to associate with people outside of whatever group they wish to identify with. I personally think they are losing out on a lot of potential friendships and association with some great people, but that is their choice and right. I wish to know others. My right. I won't try to convert the Klan or wish them harm, I hope they would afford me the same rights.

I am not naive and I know there are those who call themselves members of the Klan who would as soon lynch me in the midst of the highway as allow me to live, but those people are extremists and they exist in every walk of life, not just in the KKK. It is sad that most can only see one negative and apply that broad brush to all. It is no better to assume all Klansman would wish me dead than to think of any group in a generalized stereotypic way. Beyond not wanting to associate with me or persons like me, I can be fairly certain there are Klansmen that have many redeeming qualities. I would not know from personal experience, since it is kind of a given that I would not be welcome to associate with members of the Klan. I still am willing to hold out hope that the majority of Klansmen are actually decent people. One might say it's a character fault of mine. I am willing to consider anyone decent until they have proven to be otherwise.

[Atwater Vitki]

Even speaking as one who a Klansman would want nothing to do with, I support their rights to be who they are - at least to a point. I obviously do not condone acts of terror or anything that would injure another person bodily or by means of destruction of property. That being said, no one should be forced to like me or associate with me. If someone chooses not to wish to associate with me due to factors completely beyond my control, that is their choice and their right. They are not hurting me, they are not wishing me harm, they simply wish to not associate with people of my particular demographic/heritage/race/....

It may come as a shock to some that I have no problem with someone not wanting to associate with people outside of whatever group they wish to identify with. I personally think they are losing out on a lot of potential friendships and association with some great people, but that is their choice and right. I wish to know others. My right. I won't try to convert the Klan or wish them harm, I hope they would afford me the same rights.

I am not naive and I know there are those who call themselves members of the Klan who would as soon lynch me in the midst of the highway as allow me to live, but those people are extremists and they exist in every walk of life, not just in the KKK. It is sad that most can only see one negative and apply that broad brush to all. It is no better to assume all Klansman would wish me dead than to think of any group in a generalized stereotypic way. Beyond not wanting to associate with me or persons like me, I can be fairly certain there are Klansmen that have many redeeming qualities. I would not know from personal experience, since it is kind of a given that I would not be welcome to associate with members of the Klan. I still am willing to hold out hope that the majority of Klansmen are actually decent people. One might say it's a character fault of mine. I am willing to consider anyone decent until they have proven to be otherwise.

Yes, there are KKK members who only wish to associate with "their kind" and not necessarily do others harm Bro. Devon, that is true. You're right to say it is not fair to say that "all" of "KKK" "KoC" etc only desire harm to others. I'm absolutely certain there are Klansmen that have redeeming qualities and that there are those who are decent people. However, from experiences; the motorcycle club I once was a member of and several of the more neo-Nazi type associations of even my beloved Ásatrú Folk, there is a vast number that can't or won't back down when a leader says "Let's do..??...!" anything from beating people up to the ultimate act of hatred, death.

I don't feel there is anything wrong with people wanting to associate with only "their kind", in fact, in a cultural sense that's almost admirable. Unfortunately it rarely stops there, not because of the majority, but because of the powers of suggestions of the few in power or high position.

For instance...all Ásatrú Folk groups are about our Nordic culture and many follow the Old Ways. It is perplexing to us why some people of other ethnicities would want to join but if they are genuine in heart and desire, no problem at all...in some (a very few) kindreds. But as hard as it is to admit, that is most certainly not all kindreds, gilds or other types of hofs....in fact, it's the minority view. I think even "HH" can vouch for that being a member of Ásatrú Assembly from a different state. One Ásatrú group up in Sacramento, CA (Odin's Vit Rätt or "white right") is nothing short of 'KKK' type people who do indeed spout off about "ethnic cleansing" and types of ethnic subjects and are extremely Neo-Nazi and totally pro-white only.

And that's why I ended the above with showing "change"...even if it's only that one chapter of KKK. If they can genuinely demonstrate a true change of heart then it is most assuredly not fair to them to be treated like their reputation suggests.

It's very admirable of you to " hold out hope " and "consider anyone decent until they have proven to be otherwise", believe it or not I am of similar views. Unfortunately this isn't a case of a small group being held to a higher standard...it's 160 years of the entrenched mind-set of a nation wide organization that has no one's but their own agenda in mind.

Wouldn't it be great if all people DID get along and no one hated another? If we all lived in Peace? Brother Nestingwave seems convinced we are about to enter into a world of change on just that order and scale, I'm sure you'll join me hoping that is indeed the reality we'll all see come Dec 21! In the meantime, we have the reality of the world we currently live in.

Blessings of Peace,

[Dorian Gray]

I would settle for a world where even if people hated each other, they lived and let live.

[Brother Kaman]

I would settle for a world where even if people hated each other, they lived and let live.

That is the key. I don't care what horrible things people believe about each other. It is the actions they take against each other that cannot be tolerated. We torture others to get information about people who torture others so I suppose it is just a small step backward to be intolerant of the intolerant. These people do this and that so, by God, we are going to do this or that back to them.

[BrDevon]

I would settle for a world where even if people hated each other, they lived and let live.

That's pretty much where I want to live. On the giant playground of life, there will be other kids who don't want to play with me. Fine. I'll play over here and they can find their own friends. Just let my friends and me play in peace.

[Hyper Real]

I would settle for a world where even if people hated each other, they lived and let live.

And live and let live is a situation where one guy has all the food, water, land and other resources and another man has nothing or IOUs?

That is I live while others serve me.

[simplicitys-brother]

Tell me, how long has it been since there was a verified act of terrorism by the KKK?

I wonder if some are barking up the wrong tree? Perpetuating a myth doesn't help anything.

I too want to live in a world where we leave alone those who want to be left alone and I strongly hope they are successful in their games so long as they don't harm others.

[Dorian Gray]

That's not what I said

[Asdasiae]

We hear things about being tolerant is a good thing! Intolerance is bad. But it seems being intolerant of intolerance is ok.

http://www.cnn.com/2...?iref=obnetwork

So where we have the facts of this case (as presented in the article):

1. The program is open to any group that makes the commitment and can be revoked by the state for lack of action.

2. A group traditionally known for its intolerance is attempting to become a part of the program.

3. No members of the group (at least for now or that is known, least that would have been reported) have been convicted of a hate crime.

4. This particular chapter is billing itself as the "white" version of the NAACP.

5. There is another state that the courts ruled that they cannot be denied membership in the program

======================================

This all leads to the philosophical debate:

How is it best to defeat intolerance?

Is meeting intolerance with more intolerance the answer?

Does tolerating intolerance undermine the goals of tolerance?

Is advocating "tolerance" while purposefully being intolerant of a groups belief's hypocrisy?

"I support tolerance, but only if you think like me" is this really tolerance?

Please discuss.

I think that it is not really tolerance to say that you support tolerance only if someone were to think the same of you. As it is a contradictive statement, I would think that the person making it has some issues. As to the rest of it, my opinion is quite simple. You are either tolerant of something or you are not. To me, there is no inbetween with tolerance, and if you try; it brings you into a convoluted state of being. I try to stay away from such instances myself. Blessings!

[Youch]

We hear things about being tolerant is a good thing! Intolerance is bad. But it seems being intolerant of intolerance is ok.

http://www.cnn.com/2...?iref=obnetwork

So where we have the facts of this case (as presented in the article):

1. The program is open to any group that makes the commitment and can be revoked by the state for lack of action.

2. A group traditionally known for its intolerance is attempting to become a part of the program.

3. No members of the group (at least for now or that is known, least that would have been reported) have been convicted of a hate crime.

4. This particular chapter is billing itself as the "white" version of the NAACP.

5. There is another state that the courts ruled that they cannot be denied membership in the program

======================================

This all leads to the philosophical debate:

How is it best to defeat intolerance?

Is meeting intolerance with more intolerance the answer?

Does tolerating intolerance undermine the goals of tolerance?

Is advocating "tolerance" while purposefully being intolerant of a groups belief's hypocrisy?

"I support tolerance, but only if you think like me" is this really tolerance?

Please discuss.

If the KKK wants to adopt a portion of highway for the purposes of keeping it clean, I have to problem with it. The point would be, KEEP IT CLEAN. If they cannot, or if they push their bigotry upon others, then discard them from the public books and from the register of "dogooders."

Beyond that, regarding the idea of being "tolerant of the intolerant"....... I must say I am not tolerant of the intolerant, in general terms. Liberals, the height and epitome of intolerance, are only a threat to my family and future and country.....so, no, I don't tolerate them.......they are a threat. Most of them don't know this, as they have not a clue as to the impact or history of their emotional-based ideology, which only makes their vote and ignorance that much more of a threat.

No doubt about it......

[murphzlaw1]

I can't believe no one posted this:

Nigel Powers: All right Goldmember. Don't play the laughing boy. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

[Dorian Gray]

finally someone did..i was waiting for it.