Bigotry

I saw you post on Veeky Forums
Because opposition is denoted as conflict; conflict = bad things in contemporary environment.

So it's rooted in freedom of speech?

>ideological battle.
oh god no

Is refusal to work in accordance with someone else belief bigotry?

That's all it is these days. The intellectuals are not finding truth and expanding knowledge they have just mastered persuasion and convince others to their ideology.

It's related, but extends beyond freedom of speech. You could describe "freedom of speech" as "tolerance of speech" and it would mean the same thing in practical speech. The two words carry different connotations though.

>Is refusal to work in accordance with someone else belief bigotry?
no

>in practical speech
in practical terms I mean

What if there were a set of ideas that effectively spread and promoted it's own form of bigotry.
Should non-bigots tolerate and eventually succumb to this specific incarnation of bigotry?

This. Philosophy without objectivity is like math without equations.

tolerate: to accept the state of things

as in
>to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

bigotry would be called autism except autism is associated with some forms of intelligence

>to accept things I cannot change
But you can change people's thoughts and opinions.

I tend to see intolerance as bad, but not as any sort of ultimate evil. For example, I am openly intolerant of Communists, and Marxists generally, because 150 years of literature and 95 years of practice have convinced me that there is absolutely no way for me to peacefully coexist with them, because I'm too bourgeoise for their tastes and they're not going to do an about face on over a century of dogma just because I'm a great guy. So, as far as I'm concerned, they can bleed to death in a ditch and that's fine by me. If they decide to stop being Communists, that's wonderful, but if not, there's no reason whatsoever for me to be tolerant of their beliefs. Whether that's good or bad doesn't matter, it's just how things are.

I am triggered

That's the big question. "Should we tolerate intolerance"

In practice the answer usually will depend on bullshit political tribalism.

For example, an ultra-nationalist party might advocate banning Salafism because of it's intolerant views towards gays and women. A left-wing party might then turn around and advocate banning the far-rightists because of their intolerant attitude towards Muslims, and maybe gays too. In turn the right-wingers will complain about being repressed by the left-wingers and the cycle continues.

I fall towards the liberal (in the European sense) end of the axis,and I think banning anything is both wrong and counter productive. Driving ideology underground is unlikely to eliminate it and only serves to breed resentment. I feel that in the majority of cases people will prefer tolerance/freedom to bigotry/repression (use whatever jargon you like). There are obviously objectives and people should try not to be blinkered by ideology and especially they should try not to fall into the political partisan trap that has taken over the modern political landscape.

pic unrelated

you "can" also do a hole in one on your first try. you just can't actually do it.

You really don't think people can change other's thinking?
What are demagogues?

I'll throw in this essay on the topic. Not 100% relevant but I like it. I know some people on here don't like Scott Alexander but I think he writes well.

slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

I think it's possible but that doesn't mean everyone is able.

this is not a complicated idea nigga

>Driving ideology underground is unlikely to eliminate it and only serves to breed resentment.
I understand you said "wrong and counter productive" but I suppose I am more interested in the wrong part less the counterproductive part. The apparent impractically of destroying an ideology is not an issue in my mind. Why do you feel it is wrong?

What is that map? Tried reverse-search, didn't give me anything useful, and my (admittedly weak) grasp of British Isles history tells me that only some of those are even real historical states, and not with the correct boundaries.

Is it some balkanized Britain from fiction?

You mean sophistry.

Not an entirely unreasonable opinion but chances are you already coexist with plenty of marxists. Hell, there are probably Marxists and Fascists talking to each other in this thread.

I think you should be more wary of intolerance, especially violent intolerance. This idea that they're out to get you works both ways and just creates a feedback loop.

Do you think a commie would be unjustified reading this
>So, as far as I'm concerned, they can bleed to death in a ditch and that's fine by me.
And then deciding that peaceful coexistance with you is impossible?

It's pretty much chicken/egg shit that's unlikely to help anyone.

I don't understand your post then The rubes who lack rhetoric, which includes myself I suppose, should be tolerant simply because they are incapable of changing people's minds?

What's the difference?

Nothing wrong with intolerance. People should live with who they want,and discriminate as they please,as self interest is totally subjective. If a person doesnt want to make cakes for faggots,or the other way around,so be it. People should live on their own kkk towns,for all I care.

Reminder that fags all need to be gassed

Philosophy is an end in itself. Sophistry is the tool which has the goal of persuading others.

>What's the difference?

He already said the difference:

>To attain further knowledge and understanding of the world, or to assert your authority?

I thought he got his suits fitted since he managed to pull them off better than a fedora.

My issue is with the means required rather than the end. I wouldn't be phased if Salafism, Communism, "SJWism" (for want of a better word) and the European New Right all disappeared tomorrow, but I can't think of any way of doing that that doesn't involve a lot of bloodshed.

Nope

Not an argument.

Then why did Plato bother to try and convince everyone that the sophists and philosophy should be distinguished?
He's obviously persuasive since people still believe to this day.

Partway through, very interesting so far.

This is also true. It's the whole 'punching up' situation, where the framework you're in influences how moral your actions are. You can accept coexistence with the people while disagreeing with their ideas, especially when their ideas are no threat. Nobody's going to have a Communist purge of the bourgeoisie in America at the moment, the climate just isn't right.

I accept your surrender

Yes it is easy to be tolerant when an ideology is not existential threat.
That strikes me as naivete born of privilege.

tolerance means ability to deal with not being able to change things; if you get retarded about it instead, you are intolerant.

>the act or capacity of enduring; endurance

I think it's just an autism map from /int/.

The states are, in Ireland the four historical provinces of Ireland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Ireland

In England, the anglo-Saxon heptarchy, plus the two sides of the war of the roses and Devon which may or may not be part of Cornwall in this fantasy, idk.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

Scotland is just divided on cultural lines rather than any historical states. The Gaelic highlands, Anglic Lowlands, Norse-Gael Islands and Norse Orkney

Wales and Cornwall are as they are normally.

...

But people DO have the ability to change things especially if they are willing to be intolerant.
I tolerate gravity because I cannot change it but the same argument doesn't hold for other's beliefs.

Do you think that there's something wrong with being persuasive? Taking part in sophistry and philosophy are two distinct acts with different intentions. Plato bothering to convince people of this has nothing to do with philosophy of course, but that's besides the point.

>Yes it is easy to be tolerant when an ideology is not existential threat.
I actually agree, but I don't think that's necessarily an argument against tolerance. There are a great many things that are easier when you're in a comfortable position. It is easy for a rich man to oppose stealing, much harder for a starving orphan.

I think to a certain degree morality is a luxury.

It's not wrong, just don't expect a lot of respect from those you don't respect.

That definition seems problematic.

If I recognize that I cannot change a sub-group's opinions or political sympathies, and I accept that, that is tolerant. But If I have the ability to change the broader spectrum of opinions by removing the people who hold that particular opinion, would that not be intolerant? I'm not trying to convince them of anything, nor am I necessarily saying they're wrong. I'm just removing them because that opinion interferes with my broader goals.

By your definition, that would be tolerant. I don't think it is.

This is a really comfy thread, which I did not expect from the OP.

Good job, Veeky Forums

If you're removing people, that doesn't seem to meet the definition of enduring them; you're creating a new paradigm where you are not enduring them, but excluding them.

Yes, but your willingness to endure them seems based on your inability to change the paradigm. That's what i was trying to point out. Removing them can be a legitimate solution, for example, the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. Would that, or would that not be intolerant? I personally believe that it would be intolerant, but also sufficiently justifiable that one could carry it out without being considered compromising morally.

I don't really understand he's definition of tolerance.
People are tolerant by choice not because they are incapable of changing anything.

>I personally believe that it would be intolerant, but also sufficiently justifiable that one could carry it out without being considered compromising morally

How so? Are we not working off the basis that being intolerant is morally inferior to being tolerant?

Because sometimes, the people who hold different opinions than yours are right.

Who determines that?

tolerance is the ability to deal with things, not the action.

So what if a people collectively decides "nope we've had enough of being tolerant thank you very much we'd like to start being intolerant in the name of self-interest and self-preservation"?

Shit happens.

Well you can, if you want to.

So you'd accept that, or would you object on the grounds of tyranny of the majority being incompatible with your moral outlook on politics?

That dude's not me. I would object, yes, and I think over all it's a pretty bad idea.