PDA

View Full Version : What Does 'Tolerance' Mean to You?



Demigorgona
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2003, 04:37 AM
If you have an opinion, valid or not, that goes against that of so called progressive thinkers you are almost always placed in an 'ist' category ie: sexist, racist.



Many people who claim to have open minds, are only open minded about the things that they agree with and refuse to give the time of day to ideals that contradict them. (And they all generally agree with the status quo.)



What does 'Tolerance' mean to you ... Agreeing to Disagree over something you dislike and being willing to overlook it, or Accepting something completely. It seems to me that the lines between acceptance and tolerance have been blurred.

Demigorgona
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2003, 06:58 AM
Well I keep meaning to post, but everytime i come here i have 7 or more pages of posts to read through lol ...

Jack
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2003, 07:16 AM
Tolerance is keeping an open mind and using one's critical faculties to analyse an opponents arguments. That's how I see it, anyway.

Ahura Mazda
Sunday, December 7th, 2003, 10:01 PM
Tolerance? Allowing others to think and do as they wish, unless the doing part impedes on another person's rights. Yeah, I know that is probably a very cloudy definition.


At least, that's my personal definition of tolerance. Some people are intolerance of intolerance; I merely wish to understand it.

NormanBlood
Tuesday, December 9th, 2003, 04:27 PM
Tolerance to me is leaving an openmind to all things in life, examening and experiencing them. This then leads to formulating an opinion. For example, if at one point in one's life they are tolerant, to lets say racial mixing, they will not only "tolerate" it but try to figure out whether in reality it is worth tolerating. If the person then examins the effects of racial mixing they will then, by looking at the results of what they have found, decide whether they tolerate racial mixing or will be intolerant to it. I think in reality there are two stages of tolerance. The first stage being tolerant to everything, examining then forming an opinion. The second stage being you discover whether you agree with that certain aspect or not, you then either grow tolerant or intolerant to it depending on your own thoughts.

Personally I think there is definetly a limit to which one can be tolerant. Sometimes tolerance isn't the best thing.

Gladstone
Saturday, December 13th, 2003, 12:59 AM
If you have an opinion, valid or not, that goes against that of so called progressive thinkers you are almost always placed in an 'ist' category ie: sexist, racist.



Many people who claim to have open minds, are only open minded about the things that they agree with and refuse to give the time of day to ideals that contradict them. (And they all generally agree with the status quo.)



What does 'Tolerance' mean to you ... Agreeing to Disagree over something you dislike and being willing to overlook it, or Accepting something completely. It seems to me that the lines between acceptance and tolerance have been blurred.

As to discussions with others over ideas I'm very much into the idea of "agreeing to disagee" with someone. As to society as a whole I think tolerance should be allowed to the point of where it hurts, not beyond (as in doing damage or harm to people, phyiscal property, etc). Every society has to have a limit as to tolerance. Our modern understanding of "tolerance" has been somewhat skewed thanks to our rad-lib friends (reds, Marxists, multi-cultists, whatever you want to call them) to beyond general historical allowances as they abused the term back in the 1960's thruout our Western Europeon nations. 1968 was a critical year in America, France, Britain, especially; that was the year "mass" protest had their most powerful effects. I have some video tapes of rock bands from 1968-1969, Woodstock, etc, you have to see them to see just how low things got. The Byrds on this one tape from England's "The Beat Club" were obviously stoned out of their minds; Woodstock literally had folks wandering around naked (that's not freedom, that's licentiousness, quite a difference) The idea of tolerance was abused as they greatly expanded the definition of that term for their purposes during that time as a device to break our societies (ie "pushing the envelope", "expand your consciousness", etc). Bear in mind, the Marxists who promoted the nonsense in our Western Societies did not tolerate the same in their own states, ie China, Soviet Union, Eastern Europe; this broadened self-destructive understanding of tolerance was, and is, aimed primarily at our Western Europeon states for our consumption. In a similar way someone delivering arsenic to someone by way of food makes sure not to ingest the same. I once saw for instance a book on the old Soviet Union that showed a youth in court whose crime had been to write a message on a mirror, something quite childish; he was given a harsh sentence for "hooliganism". The Marxists in their own states are thus very much "law and order" and do not buy their own propoganda.

While it is true "the Wall" has fallen in Germany and the ostensible Soviet governments do not appear to be in power now I do very much agree with those defectors who are of the opinion that the Marxists are still very much there (and here) pursuing their same aims. That due to the fact of coagulating resistance to Soviet expansion which reached a peak in the 1980's, they merely changed tactics. When the West has decayed enough (and here is what I think the primary purpose of multi-culturalism is, to weaken us), China and Russia will openly join forces to attack and (God forbid!) crush the West. Once they achieve power (and once more God forbid!) they will not tolerate what our Europeon states did in the 1960's with the protests etc; they know how they came into being and will not tolerate someone trying the same with them. Many naive Westerners who helped to bring about the New Dark Age will be in for quite a surprise at that time as to what a controlling state it will be; very likely even more "terrible" than those "bad old days" of America's 1950's.;-)

What ever happens, it seems Antonio Gramsci's quest for legitimacy has failed. Particularly in America, these folks would not have obtained positions of power had they said openly what it was they desired, even now that is largely true; deceit was used on their part and the abuse of the language, ie the term "tolerance". Thus, the Reds remain, and probably always will, the illigitimate political bastards they have been since stealing the Russian people's freedom in '17 with their armored cars driving into Moscow.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 12:05 AM
Tolerance to me is leaving an openmind to all things in life, examening and experiencing them. This then leads to formulating an opinion. For example, if at one point in one's life they are tolerant, to lets say racial mixing, they will not only "tolerate" it but try to figure out whether in reality it is worth tolerating. If the person then examins the effects of racial mixing they will then, by looking at the results of what they have found, decide whether they tolerate racial mixing or will be intolerant to it. I think in reality there are two stages of tolerance. The first stage being tolerant to everything, examining then forming an opinion. The second stage being you discover whether you agree with that certain aspect or not, you then either grow tolerant or intolerant to it depending on your own thoughts.

Personally I think there is definetly a limit to which one can be tolerant. Sometimes tolerance isn't the best thing.
Self-driven tolerance is the only way.

Agrippa
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 04:57 PM
Everybody is tolerant AND intolerant. Its just a question of priorities.

Really "tolerant" is just a complete idiot who doesnt feel and think.

I'm tolerant in a certain way, but my tolerance has certain limits, and so it is with everybody.

So to say "be tolerant" is just idiotic, especially if its about things which affect me, my collective, my ideals and probably the whole world.
To be tolerant towards destructive behaviour means just to be ignorant and indifferent.

Skando-naivian-Girl
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 04:31 PM
Everybody is tolerant AND intolerant. Its just a question of priorities.



Yes we owe our tolerance first to our family...and than to our community(race).

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, June 3rd, 2018, 09:39 AM
Tolerance means putting up with the intolerable, no different than "picking your poison" when drinking alcohol. You can build up resistance to your own senses and fool yourself into temporary adaptations, but you are still ruining yourself.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Sunday, June 3rd, 2018, 11:42 AM
Bloodgroup '0' is intolerant to all other blood groups.
All blood groups are tolerant to blood group '0' .

My blood group is '0' .
Wondering why Skadi does not have a blood group line
in the profile settings.
A woman with bloodgroup '0' probably should stay away
from a marriage with a man of any of the other blood groups,
and males of blood group '0' probably should also stay
away from women with any other blood group.


And then there are Food Intolerances.

Possibly there are Psychological Intolerances.


The measure is important , too.
The more intolerable the amount of intolerable intake,
the more extreme the allergic reactions might show up.

Chlodovech
Monday, June 4th, 2018, 12:32 AM
Apparently it wasn't so clear what tolerance meant back in 2003, but now there can be no doubt as to what it means: "shut up, how dare you interrupt my monologue!" and "here are more migrants - and not a word from you!" Tolerant is something we're expected to be, but tolerance is never extended to us. A "tolerant" society is obviously a decaying society. 'Tolerance' is a meaningless leftist/secular buzzword comparable to "equality" and "compassion" ... it's a meaningless word soup. And all it signifies is "more for one group and less for another"; a transfer of wealth, power and land from one group of people to the next.