In a push for tolerance how can we have tolerance the intolerant

Skip broke back mountain.... Deal with the conclusion.

So Disney rated g movie maleficent should be rated by a government as banned content? 

How do we make this rhetoric reality?

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

I when you started this topic off you were asking about the paradox of ‘tolerating the intolerable’.  Now three words seem to come into play that are not at all interchangeable:  tolerate, accept, and comply.

I would say that what is being asked when you use the word ‘tolerance’ is really unilateral tolerance and not bilateral tolerance.

For example:

‘If a husband and wife have a bilateral tolerance for relationships outside of their marriage, both parties are allowed to have other lovers. The relationship tolerance goes both ways. If a wife knows her husband has lovers outside the marriage and allows it, but the husband does not allow the wife the same openness, this is a unilateral tolerance.’  I guess you can guess what a third option would be if this were not agreed upon at all:  intolerance.

The difference being that the ones that support this and want it ‘accepted’ do not want to ‘tolerate’ the ‘intolerance’ of their behavior by others.  This cannot be forced on the folks that do not agree with it.

In the same sense that folks will claim you cannot legislate ‘morality’; the question has to be asked can you legislate what some will deem ‘immorality’?

The law will simply make these ‘intolerant’ folks ‘comply’.

But you absolutely have to flip the question around to see the full paradox.  Why can’t the people that want this behavior tolerated, AND accepted, ‘tolerate the intolerance’ from folks that do not like it.  If someone does not agree with it and thinks it can influence young kids that are exposed to it (or any of the other reasons to be against it) — how can you then not tolerate them?

It is not simply a case of it not affecting others because it is in the privacy of their own bedroom.  That is not the case.  It is moving more and more front and center.  You see it, like you mentioned, in the movies, commercials and magazines, etc.

The media, like you mentioned, are really pushing this not only to be tolerated — they are pushing it to be accepted.

Now, they are forcing you to ‘comply’ with it, along with other lifestyles, etc. that folks do not accept.

Now you have a month to ‘celebrate’ and ‘promote’ this behavior.   

Now you have lawsuits filed against people because they ‘mis-pronouned’  (which is not even a word) someone.

This is not the old days of ‘in the closet’ — that was tolerated and mostly accepted.  But now you have it being openly advanced for ‘acceptance’.

Paul Varnell was correct — they want acceptance of their behavior.

One day someone you have always known as ‘Nick’ announces they want to be called ‘Nicky’.  That is looked at askance.  But, okay, we will call you what you like.  Then you find out why they want you to call them that.  That is when you realize there really is a slippery slope to this acceptance and tolerance that is pushed on folks that disagree with it.

Now it is reaching a younger and younger age.  This is not something that is in the bedroom of two consenting adults anymore.  It is very prevalent in more and more ways.

Now, so to speak, the camel is all the way in the tent and has just about taken over the tent.

For example, even you used the word ‘gross’ when talking about the behavior.  Do you realize the trouble that even that can you get you into in some places?

This implies that you certainly do not think favorably toward it.  I think you should ask yourself why that is?

So, yes, people can be kind and tolerate it — to a degree.  But you cannot truly force people to agree with something they see as immoral or even against nature.  This is not a true tolerance.

The media, and others, have slowly, over a long period, got us to this point.  Studies in the workplace, for example, show this to lead to an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ culture.  You see some of this psychology at play now with this issue — way more than you did when it was two consenting adults in their bedroom.  It is not just one singular, private, behavior anymore they want tolerated.

The conclusions that the tire iron represents danger and beating and that violence hung over their heads?  

Sure, I could see that.  Violence was more prevalent then I think.  But the point is violence should not be tolerated against anyone — no matter their beliefs or behaviors.  Unless, it is a direct threat on you or your family. 

I don’t think I understand the last question?  Should Maleficent be rated G? Or banned?  Or are you asking should Broke Back Mountain be banned by the same group that rated Maleficent a G?  

I really cannot answer I don’t think. I have not seen either movie.  

Certainly some movies should be G and some other ratings.  Certain things should be banned.  But as far as I know Broke Back Mountain wasn’t one that should have been banned.

Maybe that was some of your question. 

The question should be should we want to make it reality?  Because obviously certain nations will never agree nor adhere to some things in there.  

There are big issues with this.  

One big point is that we have our own laws, guidelines, Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc.  We have a hard enough time agreeing on those and applying them. 

I am not sure how much of an in-depth answer you are looking for here.  There are a slew of different ways to go with Bill of Human Rights thing.  

But if the answer I gave just above is not what you are looking for — let me know. 

Yes, media and schools are absolutely the most effective way to get it out there.  But you are making an assumption here where I don’t accept the premise.  You are assuming it SHOULD be done to get this message out there.  You assume it is a message that NEEDS to get out there.  Many, many people would disagree with this flat-out.  They do NOT like tolerating this.  

Karl Popper work of a free and open society.

Karl Popper defends his position by saying that if we allow unlimited tolerance, intolerance will use its freedom to attack tolerance and destroy it. And that is not what we want. This is why he says we should not tolerate tolerance. He does not however want us to silence or censor them, but to fight them back with reasonable arguments. He does however say we should have the right to be intolerant (even violently!) to them if they are not ready for a debate, as they may prevent "their followers [from listening] rational argument, because [they say] it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

Justice, John Rawls says that we should tolerate intolerance, or else the society will itself become intolerant. However, he comes to a similar conclusion as Popper: in extreme consequences, a tolerant society still has the right to self defense, but he adds a condition to what Popper said--only when the tolerant "sincerely and with reason" believe that their own safety and liberty are in danger.

We have crossed that bridge. And must change the intolerant to conclude we can not tolerate the intolerant.

So how do we change the language the long term view of the evasion intolerant within spirit of peaceful protest.

Schools, social media, television  come to mind but to truly achieve we must change the minds of the child care advocates, the parents.

In essence, John Rawls tells us that we should allow intolerance as a right and freedom, just as long as it doesn't go against the right and freedom of the other.

Today, as diversity in opinion is everywhere and the idea of tolerance is more powerful than ever, it is time to reflect upon these positions. And it is even more important to discuss the limits of free speech and at the same time, the limits of censorship. It is bad to be intolerant, but it is bad to hold back freedom of speech. So, where is the middle ground? Where does your right to be intolerant end, and where does my right to fight back end?

At the point of murder in my opinion when citizens are threatened by the tire iron symbol then as a society we can not tolerate the hate. 

Within n the secrecy of our structured government we have and can destroy terrorist cells. We can sit at a mile and snipe citizens who are white supremacists such as we did on ruby ridge Idaho.

We can evaporate entire towns , destroy complete communities and leave nothing more than a pile of rocks from planes and missiles flying 100 feet above the surface as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq theaters.

A klan tally is nothing more than a few RPG and positioned settings  during a cross burning ceremony by all means necessary we absolutely can solve this problem and give it a zero media black out coverage or blame it on a gas leak . 

This is an extreme solution but we absolutely have the ways and means to solve this problem.

Before we go to the swords and or knives

 let's try an olive branch solution.....

So, you disagree with them?  Based on what?  Just what you feel?  I say this is emotional at this point and has been driven by the slow advancement over time of trying to get acceptance of this behavior. 

Of course they are right -- you have to tolerate intolerance in some instances.

I do not agree that you need to.  I completely think it is wrong to think you have to change their mind -- just for approval of behavior people do not agree with.

So, it is not a question of how to do this.  It is a question of why you think it is even needed at all.

This is the core of the problem.  It is NOT always bad to intolerant.

Many people will argue we had that -- they tolerated the 'two consenting adults in the bedroom'.  But now that it is front and center and influencing children and slowly eroding everyone else until they accept this behavior as 'normal' -- that is now something some folks do not want to tolerate. 

We are discussing the same paradox 

As an example.

Is a hunter of child predators a predator?

We can not tolerate the child predators. 

So we tolerate their predators...,

Right.  Killing is wrong -- so murdering folks is not tolerated but we tolerated killing the murderers.  Yes.  A lot of examples of this.

But this obviously gets away from the 'it is not hurting anyone else' point.  It is not a 'two consenting adults in their bedroom' thing.  No one consents to being murdered.  A child cannot consent to anything, etc.

"It is bad to be intolerant, but it is bad to hold back freedom of speech. So, where is the middle ground? Where does your right to be intolerant end, and where does my right to fight back end?" - Justice Rawlings

To this point we agree murder is not tolerated but what about the perceived threat to personal security

Such as a symbol of a tire iron. The threat is real to the individual that their safety is in danger because of their lifestyle , should we tolerate harassment bullying ect ect .....

Tolerating a lifestyle that is AGAINST your morals is a different situation than tolerating harm or physical threat to you BECAUSE of your lifestyle.

You can be force someone to 'comply' to tolerate a lifestyle -- but no society makes you 'comply' to tolerate someone murdering you, or even doing physical harm to you.

The question is should you force them to comply to tolerate the lifestyle.

So you agree they can exist, but in what terms exist in humiliation?

@Raiders22

Symbols, words, etc. are a different discussion.  For example, is it free speech, etc.?