Tolerance, Apathy and the Fall of Civilizations

[Karl]

@sionnach.

 

Ultimately it always comes down to force, or punishment by one group trying to control another. It's funny how Christians ignore their own bloody past. It was the seperation of church and state that finally turned Christianity a peaceful cult-though, like a volcano it continues to simmer in other ways, this can be seen in particularly in the USA with anti-abortion/homophobia/racism-but more importantly in the way it's philosophy clashes with capitalism. The Republican Party are supposed to be the supporters of freedom=capitalism, but their ideology of religionism is in the opposite direction. Christianity is by its nature anti-freedom/anti-reason, therefore it is anti-capitalist and irrational.

[Stosh]

 

words do not matter. actions do. of course acceptance is tolerance.

 

A synonym is a word or phrase that means nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy. The word comes from Ancient Greek syn (σύν) ("with") and onoma (ὄνομα) ("name").

Synonym - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Nearly", .... and so then one could assume that the distinction being drawn is the subtle difference between the two words , as they are sometimes considered .

I would say theres actually a very significant difference between acceptance and tolerance which might not be attributed much importance,  but in this case that subtlety is actually the main point of the statement ,I would think. 

I could spell the difference out , if you like. 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Stosh

[Taoist Texts]

 

I could spell the difference out , if you like. 

Yes, by all means please do, thank you.

[Stosh]

"acceptance not tolerance there is a reason there are two separate words "

 

The connotation for tolerance is that one doesn't emotionally condone  the thing , but lets it be anyway .. for acceptance,  the connotation is that one emotionally is resolving of the conflict and lets the situation continue. Externally viewed the two appear similar and so quite reasonably they are considered synonyms. 

 

So If I tolerate bad behavior , that may come to an end ,, if I accept it, then I am considering it as unavoidable , or OK.

Similarly, one -(may) -tolerates cloudy weather in the present, and may accept it long term.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Children brainwashed into tolerating their own destruction, they scream WITCH! if you disagree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VOFKCCaOQM

Edited July 24, 2016 by Sionnach

[Taoist Texts]

So If I tolerate bad behavior , that may come to an end ,,  

there is hope then

[Taoist Texts]

Children brainwashed into tolerating their own destruction, 

 

yes. Although both the lead singer, and the majority of children in the vid are obviously not swedes. 

[thelerner]

 The result of tolerance, pragmatism, live and let live, is 80 dead.

All I can say is perhaps one day you'll live a place without tolerance or pragmatism.  Where intolerance and extremism reign; decisions based on fright and worst case scenarios.  I don't think it'll be a good place. 

 

So.. what's your solution, exactly?  When do you call someone an animal and take your non tolerant and non pragmatic stand to defend civilization?  You understand we already lock up people who commit mass murder, right?  Let's take the Nice case.  You may have 20.. 30,000 people in a large city, men, woman, even kids who can be considered alcoholics?   In your eyes, are they animals, and should be treated as such.. imprisoned?? killed??   What if you're accused of beating your significant other?  Again, killed.. imprisoned for all petty crime?

 

Is your 'perfect' society based on easy executing those who break the law or get caught doing it?  Just how low do you go?  Would you start by killing off anyone you consider alcoholic wife beaters?  From there do you kill your way up, or down?  Especially once you've thrown out understanding and empathy.  

 

Time after time many of us have pointed out your favored lasez fairez economic model exists in Somalia.  Now I'd say your justice model is best represented by ISIS.  Not pragmatic, not tolerant, very black and white, and very murderous.  Totalitarian governments are famous for there brand of harsh justice. 

 

I'm not against laws or punishments.  I just understand perspective.  Justice shouldn't be dealt out by angry hot heads.   Lynch mob actions  are human but makes for very flawed justice.  We need to beware of making new laws right after heinous crimes, because justice is hard.  Unintended consequences real.    

[Stosh]

there is hope then

Youre probably teasing,, but Ill amend anyway. I was taught to, use tolerance , withold action against stuff until it got onerous. Some people conflate the terms and think tolerance is pretty much the same as permanently accepting a thing one thinks bad. ,,and so ,It looks to me that in this thread, there is seeming disagreement where ,on a functional level ,there isnt any.

Theres downsides to having too much or too little leniency , but it goes without saying, that the stupid application of Any principle would.

[Golden Dragon Shining]

yes. Although both the lead singer, and the majority of children in the vid are obviously not swedes. 

I should have said Swedish children, they being the primary target

Edited July 24, 2016 by Sionnach

[Karl]

All I can say is perhaps one day you'll live a place without tolerance or pragmatism. Where intolerance and extremism reign; decisions based on fright and worst case scenarios. I don't think it'll be a good place.

 

So.. what's your solution, exactly? When do you call someone an animal and take your non tolerant and non pragmatic stand to defend civilization? You understand we already lock up people who commit mass murder, right? Let's take the Nice case. You may have 20.. 30,000 people in a large city, men, woman, even kids who can be considered alcoholics? In your eyes, are they animals, and should be treated as such.. imprisoned?? killed?? What if you're accused of beating your significant other? Again, killed.. imprisoned for all petty crime?

 

Is your 'perfect' society based on easy executing those who break the law or get caught doing it? Just how low do you go? Would you start by killing off anyone you consider alcoholic wife beaters? From there do you kill your way up, or down? Especially once you've thrown out understanding and empathy.

 

Time after time many of us have pointed out your favored lasez fairez economic model exists in Somalia. Now I'd say your justice model is best represented by ISIS. Not pragmatic, not tolerant, very black and white, and very murderous. Totalitarian governments are famous for there brand of harsh justice.

 

I'm not against laws or punishments. I just understand perspective. Justice shouldn't be dealt out by angry hot heads. Lynch mob actions are human but makes for very flawed justice. We need to beware of making new laws right after heinous crimes, because justice is hard. Unintended consequences real.

 

The word 'pathetic' is the only one which crosses my mind. A lot of straw men and ad hominem.

 

Firstly capitalism requires the protection of private property rights and the application of justice by objective law. In simple terms it is the unhindered, peaceful, voluntary, consenting trading between men. Does that look like Somalia to you ?

 

Any organised group requires rules (law) and justice. People can do whatever they wish as long as it does not impinge on the property and life of others. Justice is judgement, a blind weighing in the balance in which some compensation is shifted from one side to another. That's for a judge, court and law to decide.

 

When you apply justice objectively, when you let men trade together voluntarily then reason is allowed to flourish. There are fewer that murder, get drunk, beat their partners. Most of the crimes in our society are because the philosophy we have is pragmatic and the Government we have is violent towards those it Governs and both condones and promotes irrational behaviour.

 

Laissez Faire capitalism shouldn't be seen as something to be applied by the state, but as a right. Your answer appears to be that we should merrily tolerate irrational and violence. You make no effort to begin to understand why Laissez Faire capitalism is the best economic system and you repeatedly ignore the fact that law, justice and property rights are an integral part of that function.

 

The reason we don't have, and have never had full laissez faire capitalism-although the USA was close in the 19th century-is that there is an assumption that wealth is aquired by conquest and theft. It has meant the entrepreneur has been demonised. The reason for this demonising is one single claim by a debauched philosophy, that Altruism is a fundamental good. No one has ever explained why, or how it can be such a thing, but as far as the general mass of people are concerned it is the alternative to the evil businessman who exploits and plunders at the expense of everyone else. This has been going on for so long that people just accept it as being true, they never apply reason to see that it is not only impossible-except through the use of violence-but that it is anti-reason, anti-life and wholly evil. It is the reason we are in such a fix today.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Karl

[WisteriaWinds]

Well, no shit!

 

But still, I cannot be compassionate toward someone who is self-destructive or is constantly trying to destroy others.

 

And I cannot be tolerant of someone like those people who kill innocent women and children.

 

As with most things, there are limits.

Too many people have a limited view of compassion. Compassion for a group can include taking a person out of the group.

[thelerner]

The word 'pathetic' is the only one which crosses my mind. A lot of straw men and ad hominem.

 

Laissez Faire capitalism shouldn't be seen as something to be applied by the state, but as a right. Your answer appears to be that we should merrily tolerate irrational and violence. You make no effort to begin to understand why Laissez Faire capitalism is the best economic system and you repeatedly ignore the fact that law, justice and property rights are an integral part of that function.

 

The reason we don't have, and have never had full laissez faire capitalism-although the USA was close in the 19th century-is that there is an assumption that wealth is aquired by conquest and theft. It has meant the entrepreneur has been demonised.

I believe you confuse the word 'pathetic' with I have no answers to your questions so I'll launch into my favorite Ayn Rand speech.  In many ways you are like a hard core communist.  Clinging and praising a system that in your own words never existed.. except almost in the 19th century U.S, almost.  But that's not what the discussion is about.  (and I'll stop asking you questions since you bob and weave like a drunken mime)

 

 

Killers; terrorists are strangely motivated by 'Justice', vengeance for the wrongs done to there people.  That combined with labeling others animals, lack of empathy and tolerance is what makes terrorists.  That is whats makes the worst things in the world.  Labeling others animals (ie we kill and eat animals, we punish and incarcerate criminals) in the name of justice, forgetting empathy and tolerance, living in a black and white world.  Creates horrible things. 

 

I'm not talking fantasy lands that never existed.  I'm talking about today,

Edited July 24, 2016 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

Tolerance is and always has been a double-edged sword.

[Karl]

I believe you confuse the word 'pathetic' with I have no answers to your questions so I'll launch into my favorite Ayn Rand speech. In many ways you are like a hard core communist. Clinging and praising a system that in your own words never existed.. except almost in the 19th century U.S, almost. But that's not what the discussion is about. (and I'll stop asking you questions since you bob and weave like a drunken mime)

 

 

Killers; terrorists are strangely motivated by 'Justice', vengeance for the wrongs done to there people. That combined with labeling others animals, lack of empathy and tolerance is what makes terrorists. That is whats makes the worst things in the world. Labeling others animals (ie we kill and eat animals, we punish and incarcerate criminals) in the name of justice, forgetting empathy and tolerance, living in a black and white world. Creates horrible things.

 

I'm not talking fantasy lands that never existed. I'm talking about today,

Mans world is full of change. Slavery has always been tolerated and no one could see how the world could function without it, until it did. The abolition of slavery, like Laissez Faire capitalism, isn't something requiring trial and error to see if it can work, instead you must understand- it is the only moral choice.

 

Terrorists are motivated by many things. Jihadists believe they are doing Gods work. Nazi's believed in Aryan purity. Most of the recent 'so called' terrorist attacks were by drug addled individuals trying to generate some significance from their lives. They were irrational actors-very much wild animals unable to make reasoned moral choices. The question you should ask yourself is why does it appear these attacks are on the increase ? Is the answer simply to tolerate those reasons for the increases and the actions of the men that carry out the attacks ? Do you think that empathy is that right approach to Governments and people which are evading or ignorant of morals ?

 

You are part of the problem Lerner. I don't 'preach communism, I advocate the discovery of morality and you sneer at it. 'Capitalism' means freedom from the initiation of force. The freedom to live and trade peacefully.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Karl

[futuredaze]

There seems to be a double-standard in tolerance and diversity.

 

To advocates of tolerance and diversity, they are very tolerant of people regardless of race and gender.  However, many of these people are actually quite intolerant of different opinions, to the point of acting like children who prefer name-calling to open discussion.  As someone who considers himself a seeker of truth, I find intellectual and creative diversity to be the most important thing.  I think 5 people of the same ethnicity and gender, but with very different opinions, is more stimulating than hearing 5 people of mixed races and gender echoing the same opinion.  Diversity for the sake of diversity seems just as bad as any other dogma or absolutism.

[futuredaze]

From Kierkegaard's book "Two Ages,"

 

 

The present age is essentially a sensible, reflecting age, devoid of passion, flaring up in superficial, short-lived enthusiasm and prudentially relaxing in indolence. ...whereas a passionate age accelerates, raises up, and overthrows, elevates and debases, a reflective apathetic age does the opposite, it stifles and impedes, it levels.... In antiquity the individual in the crowd had no significance whatsoever; the man of excellence stood for them all. The trend today is in the direction of mathematical equality, so that in all classes about so and so many uniformly make one individual.... For leveling to take place, a phantom must first be raised, the spirit of leveling, a monstrous abstraction, an all-encompassing something that is nothing, a mirage—and this phantom is the public.... The present age is essentially a sensible age, devoid of passion and therefore it has nullified the principle of contradiction (p. 68, 84f., 90, 97).

Edited July 28, 2016 by futuredaze

[futuredaze]

Just to clarity, when Kierkegaard talks of "leveling" he talks about reducing to the lowest common denominator.  This parallels Nietzsche and his more well-known idea of "herd mentality."

 

By placing the "phantom of the public" -- embodied in his age as newspapers (the new and popular media of the time) -- at the center of human consciousness, individuals are less likely to embrace their rugged individualism and are more likely to be "sensible, reflecting... devoid of passion," they are members of the herd first and foremost.  All actions and thoughts then become a relationship to this imaginary notion of "the public," preventing people from thinking independently.

Edited July 28, 2016 by futuredaze

[Karl]

Just to clarity, when Kierkegaard talks of "leveling" he talks about reducing to the lowest common denominator.  This parallels Nietzsche and his more well-known idea of "herd mentality."

 

By placing the "phantom of the public" -- embodied in his age as newspapers (the new and popular media of the time) -- at the center of human consciousness, individuals are less likely to embrace their rugged individualism and are more likely to be "sensible, reflecting... devoid of passion," they are members of the herd first and foremost.  All actions and thoughts then become a relationship to this imaginary notion of "the public," preventing people from thinking independently.

I don't like the description 'rugged individualism' it could mean anything including being a murdering tyrant, thief, liar, or fraudster. I agree that there has been a push towards 'the public' 'society' and other collective phrases in contrast to maintaining independence and independent thought. Rugged individualism, like capitalism, is used as a perjorative by collectivists. It's easy to massage the words into whatever form an attacker wishes effectively utilising the enemies strengths against them. Collectivists are amazingly adept at this redefinition of words because, in the main, the chief protagonists are the intellectual elite that deplores the masses and their activities, wishing to Marshall them into one cohesive homogenous whole which can be utilised like an Ox.

[thelerner]

The question you should ask yourself is why does it appear these attacks are on the increase ? Is the answer simply to tolerate those reasons for the increases and the actions of the men that carry out the attacks ? Do you think that empathy is that right approach to Governments and people which are evading or ignorant of morals ?

 

You are part of the problem Lerner. I don't 'preach communism, I advocate the discovery of morality and you sneer at it. 'Capitalism' means freedom from the initiation of force. The freedom to live and trade peacefully.

Let's see.. Why does it appear these attacks are on the increase?  When you've been alive and reading the news as long as I have, you realize there's an ebb and flow to things.  Even with terrorism, if you cognizant in the 60's and 70's there were huge spikes.  Many of it now is the (hopefully) death throws Daesh (Isis), as they're losing land they're sending propaganda to sympathetic and stupid individual to commit murder on there behalf.

 

I'd also point out that refugees are a weapon of modern warfare.   Nations would be better off creating safe zones in war torn countries, then taking in 100,000's or millions.  Diverting some of the billions spent on modern war equipment into fast, decent refugee sites in there own countries, would solve much of the horrors of the latest migration.  Especially if it went beyond housing into life quality programs.  

 

Horribly at times with less terrorism there seems to full blown wars that create destruction and body counts that make terrorism seem almost benign.  Not to mention we tend to only be aware of terrorism when its in the West, ignoring the constant threat some of the world lives in.

 

Is empathy the right approach?  Yeah, without having a basis on empathy you don't understand Whys.  You end up fighting symptoms and not the disease.  It doesn't mean you don't punish.   It means you go beyond just punishing and look at the causes behind actions. 

 

Bad idea to live in a black and white world, where you elitist enough to conclude those who disagree with you are without morals.  Very black and white.  Instead of justice, you get rules, more rules and devolution into puritanical hypocrisy.  Setting intelligent pragmatic laws within a live and let live framework,  doesn't seem that offensive to me. 

 

Perhaps one day you'll live in your dream world, where tolerance and empathy are dirty words, and unbridled capitalism means businesses can get away with anything they want.  Somehow I don't think it'll be the 'moral' utopia you think it will. 

 

 

What else.. "Rugged individualism, like capitalism, is used as a perjorative by collectivists. It's easy to massage the words into whatever form an attacker wishes effectively utilising the enemies strengths against them"  Trotting out plot lines from Ayn Rand doesn't wash in real life.  Most people admire rugged individualism.  The best of them are live and let life people by there very nature.  Its the small minded who are stuck judging and corralling people into there little boxes.

[Karl]

Its good practice to look for causes, but in the case of justice the law is one of equality for everybody. There is no excuse for murder unless it's in self defence. The law does not require to know why a person behaved in a certain way, it is only necessary to prove that he did. Empathy does not sit well with the law. The law is black and white. By making it grey you dismiss it as law and make it a subjective exercise and open to flag aren't abuse by multiple interpretations. X is X. The law must be clear and applicable to all. Those that are proven to have broken it must accept judgement.

 

Tolerance is a dirty word, empathy is a necessary human trait.

 

'Unbridled' is an attempt at an appeal to emotion. Capitalism is simply free, voluntary, peaceful exchange between people. Adding 'unbridled' doesn't bring anything to the party. It's like unbridled happiness, joy, peace, wealth and in that respect unbridled capitalism would be magnificent, but I will settle for just plain old capitalism. In no way does that mean people 'getting away with anything they want'. There are those black and white laws you dislike so much that provide justice in the case of bad actors. There can be no 'getting away with it' within free, peaceful, voluntary exchange because each person walks away wealthier.

 

I don't know what 'plot lines' you are referring to. I don't like the phrase 'rugged individualism' because it gets reinterpreted by collectivists as 'dog eat dog' or some such thing. Just as you keep saying 'unbridled' capitalism in a way that suggests it is a bad thing. Let's make it plain and call it rational selfishness.

[futuredaze]

I don't like the description 'rugged individualism' it could mean anything including being a murdering tyrant, thief, liar, or fraudster. I agree that there has been a push towards 'the public' 'society' and other collective phrases in contrast to maintaining independence and independent thought. Rugged individualism, like capitalism, is used as a perjorative by collectivists. It's easy to massage the words into whatever form an attacker wishes effectively utilising the enemies strengths against them. Collectivists are amazingly adept at this redefinition of words because, in the main, the chief protagonists are the intellectual elite that deplores the masses and their activities, wishing to Marshall them into one cohesive homogenous whole which can be utilised like an Ox.

That isn't really what I meant by rugged individualism.  It seems like you are thinking of people who claim to be independent to make some sort of fashion statement.  But I did not mean people like that, those are the "individualists" in name only.  Sometimes the biggest conformists are the non-conformists, after all.

 

What I meant is just somebody who has some degree of introspection, self-awareness, self-actualization, and navigates reality in their own way without trying to imitate others.  Just like some people only pretend to be members of a group to get some sort of feel-good benefits, some people pretend to be unique individuals to get those good feelies.

 

Rugged is similar to raw, rough - which is in contrast to how many people become refined by social pressure and fear of standing out.

Edited July 28, 2016 by futuredaze

[Karl]

That isn't really what I meant by rugged individualism. It seems like you are thinking of people who claim to be independent to make some sort of fashion statement. But I did not mean people like that, those are the "individualists" in name only. Sometimes the biggest conformists are the non-conformists, after all.

 

What I meant is just somebody who has some degree of introspection, self-awareness, self-actualization, and navigates reality in their own way without trying to imitate others. Just like some people only pretend to be members of a group to get some sort of feel-good benefits, some people pretend to be unique individuals to get those good feelies.

 

Rugged is similar to raw, rough - which is in contrast to how many people become refined by social pressure and fear of standing out.

Im happy with your definition, however I'm aware of how easy it is to twist.

 

Isn't it simpler just to call it rational selfishness ? An independent person acting in a totally rational, moral way, to obtain values through honest effort and find happiness through that route. He does not rely on others 'be neither my brothers keeper, or him mine', but trades for peaceful, voluntary, mutual benefit with others. He welcomes those things which benefits life and rejects those that don't.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Karl

[Aaron]

Tolerance and apathy have nothing to do with the fall of civilization...

 

Tao Te Ching

Chapter 38

 

HIGH Virtue is non-virtuous; 

Therefore it has Virtue. 

Low Virtue never frees itself from virtuousness; 

Therefore it has no Virtue.

 

High Virtue makes no fuss and has no private ends 

 to serve: 

Low Virtue not only fusses but has private ends to serve.

 

High humanity fusses but has no private ends to serve: 

High morality not only fusses but has private ends 

 to serve. 

High ceremony fusses but finds no response; 

Then it tries to enforce itself with rolled-up sleeves.

 

Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue. 

Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity. 

Failing humanity, man resorts to morality. 

Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony. 

Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty; 

It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder.

 

As to foreknowledge, it is only the flower of Tao, 

And the beginning of folly.

 

Therefore, the full-grown man sets his heart upon 

 the substance rather than the husk; 

Upon the fruit rather than the flower. 

Truly, he prefers what is within to what is without.

 

-- John C. H. Wu