110 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidite Nemini]

I dunno.

 

I know a lot of smart people who are capable of being really stupid and intolerant.

 

Everyone can have his own slice of stupid. In fact I have not met anyone yet that wasn't stupid in some aspect. Me included of course. The difference between a smart person doing stupid stuff and a stupid person doing the same is that a smart person can realize their folly and learn from it.

 

I do not define intelligence by way of "someone knows a lot of things". Stupid people "know" a lot of things too. Intelligence for me is nothing more than the capacity to learn.

 

The world is too large to know for a single person. It is thus impossible to be completely smart, or reversely one will always not know something. Hence, judging people by referencing an impossible standard is useless. I'd much rather give credit for people wandering the path of knowledge, than for how far they got.

[Sigma Tauri]

Everyone can have his own slice of stupid. In fact I have not met anyone yet that wasn't stupid in some aspect. Me included of course. The difference between a smart person doing stupid stuff and a stupid person doing the same is that a smart person can realize their folly and learn from it.

 

I do not define intelligence by way of "someone knows a lot of things". Stupid people "know" a lot of things too. Intelligence for me is nothing more than the capacity to learn.

 

The world is too large to know for a single person. It is thus impossible to be completely smart, or reversely one will always not know something. Hence, judging people by referencing an impossible standard is useless. I'd much rather give credit for people wandering the path of knowledge, than for how far they got.

 

YES! A weirdo who has a clue!

 

You have no idea how much I love you right now.

[slimgrin]

Man, the internet hate for Seth Rogen is something I just do not get. Many if not most of my favourite comedy movies of the last decade have had him in them (Superbad, 50/50, Knocked Up, This is the End) and they actually tend to be fairly critically successful (all the movies I just mentioned have over 80% on Rotten Tomatoes), yet internet opinion of him seems to be not much higher than Adam Sandler. Am I missing something, or did everyone else just only watch that terrible-looking movie he made with Barbara Streisand?

 

He's kind of a whiny. self entitled ******.

[TheChosenOne]

SJWs are the worst scum.

 

 

No Team Aqua is.

 

 

Worse then team magma?

 

 

Team Aqua is our heroes here, they'll make people take showers!

 

 

If you disagree with what I say you are a Team Aqua member.

 

And no one wants to be a Team Aqua member.

 

You Team Aqua scum!

 

What the hell are all these "teams" Are we discussing alliances? If we are,then **** all y'all!!!!

 

 

FOR THE EMPIRE!!!!!

 

[Seraphim24]

I'm just gonna repeat the same thing I said in the other thread about stopping bullying, which is that "fighting" intolerance means you are fundamentally intolerant of this (not defined here) "intolerance."

 

It's arbitrary, fundamentally, without any explication of what we're discussing. The term is vaguely defined and thus allows people to think freely of some specific "evil" and how to combat it.. but for one person the evil is to be able to say something negative about a certain issue, and for the other person ("fighting intolerance") the evil is to not be able to prevent them from saying something negative.

 

One person thinking it was intolerance to not let something be said and another person part of the same conversation thinking it intolerance to let it be said. So without some kind of specific details, I question the base premise of this question.

[AventuroLegendary]

I think tumblr's a pretty cool guy. Eh, posts nice pictures and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Eterna]

Why should I tolerate people who hate me? Is it because people are under the false impression that as a gay person I care about what other people think of my sexuality?

 

I give zero shits if some fossil thinks I'm an abomination to his religion, I have zero desire to change said persons views and I will never tolerate such a person in my life. 

[bEVEsthda]

I haven't read the entire thread, so excuse me when I say things that maybe have been said before.

 

There is a certain age, roughly child & teenager, when a person's own moral, ethics and boundaries of acceptable behavior are setting. And basically, those boundaries are transferred from the immediate society around.

This is why anybody, who says harder punishments don't discourage crime, lies. Harder punishments by themselves don't stop anybody from committing a crime. That's unfortunately true. But the persons own moral boundaries do. And these are set by how seriously the society regards those crimes. And that is reflected in punishments. And this is also reflected in our inherited instincts that are in play in our social behavior patterns. We crave to see criminals being punished for what they've done. We want revenge. We do that because it's a social behavior that has been handed down by evolution, because it really works to make the society function.

 

But that doesn't transfer to that death penalty is a good idea. On the contrary, it gives the message that it's ok to kill someone who has wronged, or is perceived to have wronged. A society that wants life to have a high value, should have harsh punishments for murder, like life sentence, but not capital punishment. I do not know why the Middle East is so prolific in producing nut cases who'll happily primary-target and blow up innocent people, and then expect God to favor and reward them for it. But I think the public, bloody beheadings and stoning of women, that counts as entertainment in these countries, deserve some speculation.

 

When it comes to minor tolerances and intolerances, it's better to be tolerant and mainly only respond to direct attacks on tolerance. Those should not be tolerated.

[Dominus]

Shouldn't people who promote tolerance lead by example and tolerate the opinions expressed by others?

I do. Don't have much reason to pick on people for having a different perception.

For the sake of playing Devil's Advocate to make a discussion more interesting, I'll occasionally give them arguments that may cause doubt in their own. You know, cause evil.

“I never seek to defeat the man I am fighting, " he explained. "I seek to defeat his confidence. A mind troubled by doubt cannot focus on the course to victory. Two men are equals - true equals - only when they both have equal confidence.”
― Arthur Golden, Memoirs of a Geisha

[Dermain]

If you disagree with what I say you are a Team Aqua member.

 

And no one wants to be a Team Aqua member.

 

You Team Aqua scum!

 

While I understand this is trolling, this is also an excellent example of group dynamics.

 

Tumblr is designed to be a hugbox, it's not an open engagement forum like reddit or the chans (which are also cancer, but for different reasons).

So people are allowed and even encouraged to surround themselves with others who think, feel and act the way they do. It's entirely self serving and cements our world views. On one hand, it feels nice to get that support in times of trouble. On the other hand, the moment someone or something penetrates that self centered environment, people will react violently because they don't want or accept anything that challenges their worldview in their hugbox.

Do I want to relate this with the SJW phenomenon and their supposed fight for tolerance and equality? Not really. It's definitely not unique to SJWs in concept, but SJWs at the moment seem to be especially prominent and numerous examples of what I'm talking about. I don't know why many SJWs gravitate towards this more so than say, fundamentalist Christians.

Tumblr is fantastic when it comes to art, OC or gifs though. Won't deny that.

 

Irregardless of the setting people will always surround themselves with people that think the same way/agree with them. It's also an integral part of being a teenager.

 

We notice this the most when we come across other people that have different ideas/views. That is when people start becoming hostile towards each other. 

 

For an example, fans of (supposed) "rival" sports teams will generally dislike each other simply because they like different teams. However, if you want a more depressing example look at politics.

 

Why should I tolerate people who hate me? Is it because people are under the false impression that as a gay person I care about what other people think of my sexuality?

 

I give zero shits if some fossil thinks I'm an abomination to his religion, I have zero desire to change said persons views and I will never tolerate such a person in my life. 

 

You have absolutely no chance of changing said persons views anyways. 

 

Unfortunately, the rest of humanity fails at seeing that, and that can lead to some very negative outcomes. Wars come to mind...

 

I haven't read the entire thread, so excuse me when I say things that maybe have been said before.

 

There is a certain age, roughly child & teenager, when a person's own moral, ethics and boundaries of acceptable behavior are setting. And basically, those boundaries are transferred from the immediate society around.

This is why anybody, who says harder punishments don't discourage crime, lies. Harder punishments by themselves don't stop anybody from committing a crime. That's unfortunately true. But the persons own moral boundaries do. And these are set by how seriously the society regards those crimes. And that is reflected in punishments. And this is also reflected in our inherited instincts that are in play in our social behavior patterns. We crave to see criminals being punished for what they've done. We want revenge. We do that because it's a social behavior that has been handed down by evolution, because it really works to make the society function.

 

But that doesn't transfer to that death penalty is a good idea. On the contrary, it gives the message that it's ok to kill someone who has wronged, or is perceived to have wronged. A society that wants life to have a high value, should have harsh punishments for murder, like life sentence, but not capital punishment. I do not know why the Middle East is so prolific in producing nut cases who'll happily primary-target and blow up innocent people, and then expect God to favor and reward them for it. But I think the public, bloody beheadings and stoning of women, that counts as entertainment in these countries, deserve some speculation.

 

When it comes to minor tolerances and intolerances, it's better to be tolerant and mainly only respond to direct attacks on tolerance. Those should not be tolerated.

 

Most people have an intrinsic sense about what is moral, but this can be offset by their parents, society as a whole, personal experience, and belonging to certain groups (groups is used in a loose sense). The more dominant contributions come from parenting style and from personal experience. Unfortunately, child psychology is not my area of interest so I don't feel that I'll be able to give a coherent explanation about parenting styles (that can't be looked up on wikipedia), and personal experience should be self-explanatory.