Thoughts on Bigotry, Intolerance, Racism, Sexism, etc.

[Flavus Aquila]

Hatred is very interesting. I feel that hatred is used as a shield. If a person or group hates another enough, they irrationally fear that the potency of their hate will make the hated feel unwelcome enough to keep their distance. To me, it is a very natural reaction to form a strong aversion to things that you are uncomfortable with or disagree with. It is even more natural for that aversion to develop into hatred and then spur into action when the thing you fear "attacks."

It does not surprise me that there are backlashes and a generic labeling of people that is happening. When people fly under your radar, use your resources and then come out from under your nose to slaughter your citizens I can see how it would become a boiling point to sort of "sterilize" the area and try to close it off from anymore toxic entities. In the case of France, it does not shock me that they are making attacks on mosques and especially not that they've closed their borders.

Like fearing all dogs because there are dogs that attack but accepting them. Then you see or experience a dog attack and it reinforces your fear 10 fold and your fear turns to hate and you never want to be around dogs again and just thinking about them or being near them sets you immediately on edge.

The fear to hate development is natural but when applied on a grander scale it can develop into something very ugly - like war and a mass division of people and cultures that does more to separate humanity than unite it.

I don't think most "hate" is directed towards persons principally. I think it is directed towards what people stand for/stand with/etc. If someone is abused for being a muslim, is it not on account of a disdain of the muslim religion/culture/law?

Is it wrong to hate an ideology? (In the case of Islam, a legal-code and backward culture, dressed up as religion? Or Christianity, or Atheism, or Communism, or Capitalism, or any other ideology?)

 

[Trifoilum]

If calling intolerance is hypocritically intolerant of other views.
And if claiming that one's views are right is self-deluding.
What's left? Just claiming that I want things this way because I want them so. ?

Anyhow claiming that one's position is right seems less negative than branding other views intolerant.

I think this is the point where there is really no right(er) answer.

At least unless we're going to dissect everything.
When it is related to judgment and branding, in/tolerant is but one label, after all.

 

[PintoBean]

Intolerant of whom then...It’s own citizens?
How exactly is Paris tolerating the intolerant?...

Well, to speak of the unpopular, the French have had a largely open border until the horrible events of yesterday. And at least one of yesterday's murderers was a "refugee" who was validly in the country. From my reading, French intelligence now suspects that thousands more terrorists posing as Syrian refugees are within their borders.
Not to ignore your point either, yes indeedy, the French have an ugly history of bigotry. No one can defend the Vichy government with a straight face! Along with much of Europe, France has a guilty conscience, and because of this they have very confused immigration and social welfare programs. I visited in 2008 and accidentally took a train into one of the heavily North African/Muslim neighborhoods. It resembled projects across the US. Except nary a woman in site. But a lot of angry looking young men, likely Muslims. It was not only an impoverished atmosphere, it felt like a powder keg, one of pervasive simmering hostility. Bleak, hopeless, angry, scary was my immediate impression. And I thought "this will not end well." But that said, the French have, like much of Europe, long opened their boarders and their social welfare system to refugees and immigrants. Even in bandying about the fighting words of racism, bigotry, islamophobia and etc, one cannot depart completely from the facts: people were allowed to enter from parts of the world from whence France (with all its shortcomings) was an improvement. The payback? A network of terror cells, the murder of cartoonists, satirists, concert goers. Unarmed innocents gunned down in cold blood at cafes and restaurants. A bloodbath the likes of which as not been seen in Paris since WWII.

 

[Trifoilum]

Is it wrong to hate an ideology? (In the case of Islam, a legal-code and backward culture, dressed up as religion? Or Christianity, or Atheism, or Communism, or Capitalism, or any other ideology?)

This really depends.

A lot of people hate an ideology on principle, they are opposed to the ideology, its practice, and its values; and sometimes that's not wrong at all. Think racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic beliefs-- and say, feminists, racial activist, GLBTQ+ rights activists. At the very least, it's water and oil--something irreconcilable by definition.

But there are other modifiers.
People might choose to hate an ideology out of a skewed perspective-- or without a necessary understanding of the thing in question.
People might choose to hate an ideology-- and extends it to personal hatred of its believers.
People might choose to hate an ideology without care that there might be varieties and alternative paths; taking what they see as THE ONLY THING EVER.

These would made it....wrong, or at least, a really logically flawed hatred.
And it's not just religions. People can hate something 'right' or 'acceptable' with a flawed reasoning, and ultimately that too, is still...'wrong', or at least logically flawed.

It would be one thing to study a religion's dogma and tenets as a whole and resulting in hatred or disagreement.
It would be another to just see a limited form of reporting and/or awareness and decided to hate the entire religion.
And it would be COMPLETELY ANOTHER THING to decide to hate and harass and bully and discriminate the supporters of that religion
.....even more so if it is done just because they choose to believe what they believe.
.........and even, even more so if it is done because of something someone else did.

 

[PintoBean]

....f what happened in Paris, happens in the USA ... I would bet money there would be riots. We are already hyper-sensitive after 9/11.

As a US citizen, I have actually been shocked at how fast post 9/11 people made concerted efforts to oppose islamophobia and go to extreme (sometimes absurd lengths) to assert the obvious fact that not all Muslims are terrorists.

 

[JJJA]

So are you justifying terror with terror? Bravo! That's very intelligent.

I also find it amusing that you talk about tolerance and yet, you had quite a big issue with myself even criticizing Islam. I mean, you couldn't even allow yourself to tolerate other people saying something negative about it. And then you express sarcasm at my intelligence. I think in all honesty, Islam is one of the most intolerant ideologies in human history.

 

[SpecialEdition]

I don't think most "hate" is directed towards persons principally. I think it is directed towards what people stand for/stand with/etc. If someone is abused for being a muslim, is it not on account of a disdain of the muslim religion/culture/law?

Is it wrong to hate an ideology? (In the case of Islam, a legal-code and backward culture, dressed up as religion? Or Christianity, or Atheism, or Communism, or Capitalism, or any other ideology?)

An ideology is just an interpretation made by human beings and is spread to other people by those who choose to believe in it or want to manipulate others into believing it to suit a particular cause. I think hating an ideology is a bit short sighted as you cannot kill an idea. You can only find the root of it and try to dismantle it from there. And that comes down to people.

 

[PintoBean]

An ideology is just an interpretation made by human beings and is spread to other people by those who choose to believe in it or want to manipulate others into believing it to suit a particular cause. I think hating an ideology is a bit short sighted as you cannot kill an idea. You can only find the root of it and try to dismantle it from there. And that comes down to people.

So are you saying it comes down to just like helping people understand that stoning women to death for not covering their ankles is wrong and bad? Like if we could all just sit down and have a nice chat about these stonings, beheadings, terrorist attacks etc, certainly we could all get to the right page?

 

[SpecialEdition]

So are you saying it comes down to just like helping people understand that stoning women to death for not covering their ankles is wrong and bad? Like if we could all just sit down and have a nice chat about these stonings, beheadings, terrorist attacks etc, certainly we could all get to the right page?

My answer depends on how sarcastic you are being.

To add to that, [MENTION=13730]PintoBean[/MENTION], are you saying it comes down to just like helping people to understand that stoning women to death for not covering their ankles is wrong and bad by eliminating those people? Like if we could all just drop nuclear weapons and have a nice spraying of bullets about these stonings, beheadings, terrorist acts, etc, certainly we could all get on the right page? As in, the only page that would exist? Because like, the only way you can kill an idea is to like, murder everyone who holds that idea?

Let me know if this is the kind of response you want because that is the tone you were communicating. Not that I am trying to get snappy with you, but if that is your response to my opinion that you actually cannot kill an idea because it is generated and spread by human beings, then you've made your own inferences about what you think that *I* think should be done about it.

 

[Kaleidoscopic]

I also find it amusing that you talk about tolerance and yet, you had quite a big issue with myself even criticizing Islam. I mean, you couldn't even allow yourself to tolerate other people saying something negative about it. And then you express sarcasm at my intelligence. I think in all honesty, Islam is one of the most intolerant ideologies in human history.

Sorry for being rude, I'm not usually like this. I misunderstood what you said, and lost it. If you could explain what you meant to say, it would be of help.

 

[Artisan]

Personally, I think there is a fine line to walk between intolerance and tolerance. We're all familiar with the saying: "No good deed goes unpunished." It is the same with tolerance, if you don't find the right balance, your society goes to hell. On the issues presented here I believe none of the responses by society thus far has been good.

Issues like: "Refugees, should we take them in?" Thus far, people who have been saying the refugee intake is a bad idea were bashed tremendously by those that advocate tolerance. There was no attempt made to address any concerns people had such as: terrorists being among the refugees who we are letting into our countries because they aren't being screened at all. Arguments like these were bashed and made into a not all muslims are bad issue, and the arguments that these people must really hate refugees because they surely weren't ISIS. Thus no steps to screen these refugees/illegal immigrants were taken, all because people were scared of being considered intolerant and labeled unfavorably. Paris happens and; "oh shit... maybe we should indeed slow down the process and screen illegal immigrants first before letting them in".

That is a result of societies intolerance toward the people that they perceived to be intolerant and suddenly being shown that perhaps the idea of screening refugees was not such a bad and intolerant idea after all. The point I wish to make with this, is that if intolerance is met with intolerance by those considered tolerant all the time such as it is been thus far in any issue, then no measures will be taken to address valid concerns that are presented by people who are then labeled as intolerant. (this is the nice way of phrasing it, the rest usually ends with phobic, racist, nazi etc. Whatever negative label suits the issue best even when people aren't.)

In my opinion, the most tolerant thing to do, is to tolerate the concerns of those labeled intolerant whilst remaining as tolerant as possible within the confines resulting from addressing these concerns. This is something that I think applies to all topics of discussion. When we are intolerant to people saying things that we believe are intolerant, then often we dismiss their concerns outright and risk suffering the consequences. These consequences can be things like these people taking measures into their own hands and that snowballing, or their concerns coming true with some being small, big, life changing or even world changing.

Try it, google issues that you know are in a battle between tolerance and intolerance, and fish out the concerns people point out about the issue and find out if there is a possibility of their concerns coming true and if measures have been taken when this possibility of these people being right exists.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Personally, I think there is a fine line to walk between intolerance and tolerance. We're all familiar with the saying: "No good deed goes unpunished." It is the same with tolerance, if you don't find the right balance, your society goes to hell. On the issues presented here I believe none of the responses by society thus far has been good. Issues like: "Refugees, should we take them in?" Thus far, people who have been saying the refugee intake is a bad idea were bashed tremendously by those that advocate tolerance. There was no attempt made to address any concerns people had such as terrorists being among the refugees who have thus far been let into our countries without being screened at all. All because people were scared of being considered intolerant and labeled unfavorably. Paris happens and; "oh shit... maybe we should indeed slow down the process and screen illegal immigrants first before letting them in". That is a result of societies intolerance toward the people that they perceived to be intolerant and suddenly being shown that perhaps the idea of screening refugees was not such a bad and intolerant idea after all. The point I wish to make with this, is that if intolerance is met with intolerance by those considered tolerant all the time such as it is been thus far in any issue, then no measures will be taken to address valid concerns that are presented by people who are then labeled as intolerant. (this is the nice way of phrasing it, the rest usually ends with phobic, racist, nazi etc. Whatever negative label suits the issue best)

In my opinion, the most tolerant thing to do, is to tolerate the concerns of those labeled intolerant whilst remaining as tolerant as possible within the confines resulting from addressing these concerns. This is something that I think applies to all topics of discussion. When we are intolerant to people saying things that we believe are intolerant, then often we dismiss their concerns outright and risk suffering the consequences. These consequences can be things like these people taking measures into their own hands and that snowballing, or their concerns coming true with some being small, big, life changing or even world changing.

Try it, google issues that you know are in a battle between tolerance and intolerance, and fish out the concerns people point out about the issue and find out if there is a possibility of their concerns coming true and if measures have been taken when this possibility of these people being right exists.

Is it right to ask/demand that anyone tolerate anything?

Should women tolerate bullying/bashing from men? For what "greater cause" are they tolerating it? Harmony, the children, not causing trouble etc. ?

Why are we being asked to tolerate Eastern versions of fascism?

 

[Artisan]

[MENTION]Flavus Aquilas[/MENTION]

it right to ask/demand that anyone tolerate anything?
No it is not. Both the tolerant and intolerant deserve to be tolerated, and on issues that effect all of society, all concerns both sides bring up need to be adequately addressed.
You don't just tolerate everything without making careful considerations on what it could mean and taking safety measures against all that could go wrong, doing so would be foolish.
That is what I point out in my post, that all concerns in an issue should be addressed, because blindly tolerating everything whilst being intolerant of people labeled intolerant, is unwise.

 

[Skarekrow]

"Three plagues, three contagions, threaten the world.

The first is the plague of nationalism

The second is the plague of racism

The third is the plague of religious fundamentalism.

All three share one trait, a common denominator – an aggressive, all-powerful, total irrationality.
Anyone stricken with one of these plagues is beyond reason.

In his head burns a sacred pyre that awaits only his sacrificial victims.
Every attempt at calm conversation will fail.

He doesn’t want a conversation, but a declaration that you agree with him, admit he is right, join the cause.
Otherwise, you have no significance in his eyes, you do not exist, for you count only if you are a tool, an instrument, a weapon.

There are no people there is only the cause.
A mind touched by such a contagion is a closed mind, one-dimensional, monothematic, spinning round one subject only – its enemy.

Thinking about our enemy sustains us, allows us to exist.
That is why the enemy is always present, is always with us."

~ Imperium by Ryszard Kapuscinski (1932-2007)

 

[PintoBean]

My answer depends on how sarcastic you are being.

To add to that, [MENTION=13730]PintoBean[/MENTION], are you saying it comes down to just like helping people to understand that stoning women to death for not covering their ankles is wrong and bad by eliminating those people? Like if we could all just drop nuclear weapons and have a nice spraying of bullets about these stonings, beheadings, terrorist acts, etc, certainly we could all get on the right page? As in, the only page that would exist? Because like, the only way you can kill an idea is to like, murder everyone who holds that idea?

Let me know if this is the kind of response you want because that is the tone you were communicating. Not that I am trying to get snappy with you, but if that is your response to my opinion that you actually cannot kill an idea because it is generated and spread by human beings, then you've made your own inferences about what you think that *I* think should be done about it.

I think if you actually need to explain to someone or a large group of people that say stoning a woman to death for being raped (happens all the time) or shooting up a concert hall or cafe (hapened a few days ago in Paris), this is indicative of such a massive cultural problem that one could have talks and educational summits until blue in the face and it would do no good. Whatever forceful measures are possible/reasonable (and I am the first to admit that often none are), should be used to stop such barbaric practices. EDIT: So I am all for killing people who get up to these practices because I don't really believe in cultural indoctrination. I really don't see other effective alternatives. There have been all kinds of deradicalization programs for the past few decades. I don't think they've met with much success. Remember art therapy for terrorists?
http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...ting-saudi-arabian-jihadists-with-art-therapy

 

[SpecialEdition]

I think if you actually need to explain to someone or a large group of people that say stoning a woman to death for being raped (happens all the time) or shooting up a concert hall or cafe (hapened a few days ago in Paris), this is indicative of such a massive cultural problem that one could have talks and educational summits until blue in the face and it would do no good. Whatever forceful measures are possible/reasonable (and I am the first to admit that often none are), should be used to stop such barbaric practices. EDIT: So I am all for killing people who get up to these practices because I don't really believe in cultural indoctrination. I really don't see other effective alternatives. There have been all kinds of deradicalization programs for the past few decades. I don't think they've met with much success. Remember art therapy for terrorists?
http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...ting-saudi-arabian-jihadists-with-art-therapy

Having a friendly chat and just hugging it out was not my suggestion so I am not sure why my post warranted such a strongly sarcastic response from you.

I don't think there is any effective way to stop attacks from happening. I don't think there's a particularly nice or effective way to stop any kind of hate group or terrorist group from rising up. I don't think there's a way to protect everyone from someone else's ideology when they are given the resources to act it out. If people want to talk about culture they can look at any number of countries that are corrupt and over-ridden with groups that do not care about the safety and wellbeing of others. Just look at Mexico and the drug cartels for example. There are other areas that are in a constant state of war.

I think that infiltrating countries who don't support our western ideologies has already shown to be so wildly unsuccessful - look no further than Iraq which is a total mess because the USA didn't feel very good about how they were running things over there.

I agree that jihadists are not ideal but they exist and are always going to exist. Someone is always going to fund them and give them power. There is a reason that some people become susceptible to that way of thinking while others are adverse to it. I don't think this is a "massive cultural problem." I think it is simply a result of the wrong people in power which do not allow reform or progression and in some cases end up turning things backwards. When you have billions of people living in those countries and which practice one religion I am really resistant to just simply label it a cultural problem.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

"Three plagues, three contagions, threaten the world.

The first is the plague of nationalism

The second is the plague of racism

The third is the plague of religious fundamentalism.

All three share one trait, a common denominator – an aggressive, all-powerful, total irrationality.
Anyone stricken with one of these plagues is beyond reason.

In his head burns a sacred pyre that awaits only his sacrificial victims.
Every attempt at calm conversation will fail.

He doesn’t want a conversation, but a declaration that you agree with him, admit he is right, join the cause.
Otherwise, you have no significance in his eyes, you do not exist, for you count only if you are a tool, an instrument, a weapon.

There are no people there is only the cause.
A mind touched by such a contagion is a closed mind, one-dimensional, monothematic, spinning round one subject only – its enemy.

Thinking about our enemy sustains us, allows us to exist.
That is why the enemy is always present, is always with us."

~ Imperium by Ryszard Kapuscinski (1932-2007)

Grandiose pronouncements. Any reasoning to fill them out?

In the OP I hoped to avoid both sweeping commendations/condemnations, and declarations. That quote you posted throws the term plague around in a sensationalist headline-whore way (click-bait) and offers no reasoning, no discussion - rather hypocritical, given the content of the quote. This thread is about he process of coming to those statements. So, without dismissing the sweeping statements of your quote, perhaps you could go into detail (albeit speculative, since the author is long dead) about how one comes to those positions.

 

[Skarekrow]

Grandiose pronouncements. Any reasoning to fill them out?

In the OP I hoped to avoid both sweeping commendations/condemnations, and declarations. That quote you posted throws the term plague around in a sensationalist headline-whore way (click-bait) and offers no reasoning, no discussion - rather hypocritical, given the content of the quote. This thread is about he process of coming to those statements. So, without dismissing the sweeping statements of your quote, perhaps you could go into detail (albeit speculative, since the author is long dead) about how one comes to those positions.

I hardly think 2007 is long dead.
Here's a better plan.
Why don’t you read “Imperium” and find out?

Firstly I don’t think it was "click-bait" (which does dismiss the “sweeping statements” by your tone and choice of wording so thanks) when it was written as a memoir in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium_(Polish_book)

Secondly, it’s a quote from a book…so of course the context is removed.
You can’t ponder the quote and make sense of that?

Explain the hypocrisy you speak of please.

 

[PintoBean]

Having a friendly chat and just hugging it out was not my suggestion so I am not sure why my post warranted such a strongly sarcastic response from you.

I don't think there is any effective way to stop attacks from happening. I don't think there's a particularly nice or effective way to stop any kind of hate group or terrorist group from rising up. I don't think there's a way to protect everyone from someone else's ideology when they are given the resources to act it out. If people want to talk about culture they can look at any number of countries that are corrupt and over-ridden with groups that do not care about the safety and wellbeing of others. Just look at Mexico and the drug cartels for example. There are other areas that are in a constant state of war.

I think that infiltrating countries who don't support our western ideologies has already shown to be so wildly unsuccessful - look no further than Iraq which is a total mess because the USA didn't feel very good about how they were running things over there.

I agree that jihadists are not ideal but they exist and are always going to exist. Someone is always going to fund them and give them power. There is a reason that some people become susceptible to that way of thinking while others are adverse to it. I don't think this is a "massive cultural problem." I think it is simply a result of the wrong people in power which do not allow reform or progression and in some cases end up turning things backwards. When you have billions of people living in those countries and which practice one religion I am really resistant to just simply label it a cultural problem.

I was not being sarcastic in the least. Truth is stranger than fiction. There really have been art therapy camps for terrorists. When we talk about things like educational reform instead of a forceful response, what are really talking about? And how silly is it?

And I absolutely agree with you about there not being a nice way from keeping these groups from rising up. Effective? I really don't know. More effective than the current state of affairs? Probably.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I hardly think 2007 is long dead.
Here's a better plan.
Why don’t you read “Imperium” and find out?

Firstly I don’t think it was "click-bait" (which does dismiss the “sweeping statements” by your tone and choice of wording so thanks) when it was written as a memoir in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium_(Polish_book)

Secondly, it’s a quote from a book…so of course the context is removed.
You can’t ponder the quote and make sense of that?

Explain the hypocrisy you speak of please.

This isn't a book-club-thread. If you have a point to make, you'd do well to explain that point. For pete's sake, your quote criticises those who don't want to discuss their position, but just state it.

As for Kapuscinky's hypocrisy:

"Three plagues, three contagions, threaten the world...All three share one trait, a common denominator – an aggressive, all-powerful, total irrationality.
Anyone stricken with one of these plagues is beyond reason.”
~ Imperium by Ryszard Kapuscinski (1932-2007)

The principal trait which makes a human a person is rationality/the use of reason. Kapuscinski reduces holders of certain ideologies to non-persons.

He then critiques that ideologies lead their holders to see others as non-persons:

He doesn’t want a conversation, but a declaration that you agree with him, admit he is right, join the cause.
Otherwise, you have no significance in his eyes, you do not exist, for you count only if you are a tool, an instrument, a weapon.
There are no people there is only the cause.
~ Imperium by Ryszard Kapuscinski (1932-2007)

The full quote is bizarre in that it implicitly condemns its own approach as plagued, through the process of explicitly condemning the approach of plagued (ideolgised) others.