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

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:

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:
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.


I think many people got the quote…I certainly got a few reps on it.
If you can’t understand the quote properly then maybe you should read the book, because I understand it just fine.

I happen to think Kapuscinski is correct and not hypocritical.
The rational you use is akin to “you disagree with discrimination and those who discriminate, therefore you are also a discriminator”.

Do you feel he wrongly groups people and makes mass generalizations?
You make me laugh…calling the quote hypocritical.
 
I think many people got the quote…I certainly got a few reps on it.
If you can’t understand the quote properly then maybe you should read the book, because I understand it just fine.

I happen to think Kapuscinski is correct and not hypocritical.
The rational you use is akin to “you disagree with discrimination and those who discriminate, therefore you are also a discriminator”.

Do you feel he wrongly groups people and makes mass generalizations?
You make me laugh…calling the quote hypocritical.

You can't explain, but people agreed with you... that's important:
He doesn’t want a conversation, but a declaration that you agree with him, admit he is right, join the cause.
~ Imperium by Ryszard Kapuscinski (1932-2007)

No, he doesn't group people and make generalisations. He groups people and dismisses them as non-people. Surely being inadequately described is not the same as being absolutely dismissed.

Why can't you find something from a philosopher, instead of journalist as your big quote. I am not going to read his book - you sound like a mormon going about this book, even if you offered to send me a free copy. I read philosophy, not literature - I'm not the artsy-fartsy type.
 
You can't explain, but people agreed with you... that's important:

That isn’t what I said nor implied.
I implied that you are a perfectly intelligent person capable of figuring it out if you pondered it.
But if you wish for me to spell it out I will.
I just didn’t want to insult your intelligence further (as it seems I have done) by explaining a simple quote.

Being overly nationalistic is destructive to society, as is racism and religious extremism.
These things create walls not tear them down between people and societies.

No, he doesn't group people and make generalisations. He groups people and dismisses them as non-people. Surely being inadequately described is not the same as being absolutely dismissed.

Why can't you find something from a philosopher, instead of journalist as your big quote. I am not going to read his book - you sound like a mormon going about this book, even if you offered to send me a free copy. I read philosophy, not literature - I'm not the artsy-fartsy type.

Really? Good way to pigeon-hole yourself.
The point was I could care less if you read the book.
I suggested it to give you more context you desperately want.
How does he dismiss them as ‘non-people’?

Let’s ask the elephant in the room yes?
Are you offended by this quote because you see yourself in it?
You have grouped a lot of people lately into anti-muslim sentiments.

BTW, I was raised Mormon, I would sooner burn the book than send anyone a copy.
 
Also, there are volumes of books that are not considered to be philosophy, but are instead - “literature”.
Many of those books have some very wise things to say and I would argue a great number are overflowing with “philosophy”.
 
Last edited:
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.

Not talking about the art therapy. I am talking about your initial response to me when I am addressing the sarcasm.

Anyway.

How do you find out who the terrorists or potential terrorists are so that you can administer the art therapy? How do you stop it so young boys aren't being manipulated into being suicide bombers? The issue is very broad and complicated. I don't disagree that getting people in touch with themselves through art and other forms of expression is valid and can be effective but when you have such chaos over there, where do you begin? Especially when you have people that come into the country and lay dormant for years and suddenly are helping to orchestrate the deaths of citizens?

I don't really want to see a police state come about where everyone is punished and watched "just in case." But I also think that the west is getting baited into more wars and unrest and I don't believe that is always the way to go.
 
Not talking about the art therapy. I am talking about your initial response to me when I am addressing the sarcasm.

Anyway.

How do you find out who the terrorists or potential terrorists are so that you can administer the art therapy? How do you stop it so young boys aren't being manipulated into being suicide bombers? The issue is very broad and complicated. I don't disagree that getting people in touch with themselves through art and other forms of expression is valid and can be effective but when you have such chaos over there, where do you begin? Especially when you have people that come into the country and lay dormant for years and suddenly are helping to orchestrate the deaths of citizens?

I don't really want to see a police state come about where everyone is punished and watched "just in case." But I also think that the west is getting baited into more wars and unrest and I don't believe that is always the way to go.

My point exactly re art therapy and the like for terrorists.

I'm fine with a police state in some places for some people who need it. If major terrorist attacks and threats against a nation and leaders of state is bating, then yes, the US is being bated. If another 9/11 or Boston marathon type situation occurs, one cannot say we were not warned. It is not insanity or paranoia to respond to these threats in a warlike manner given empirical experience. That said, I am not so much for war as for everyone tightening up immigration. What the Michigan governor did recently here in the US (especially given that certain areas of MI are in fact reasonably suspected of having terrorist cells) makes perfect sense to me. For the French to deport the entirety of their squalid migrant camps makes perfect sense to me also. Much more so than the airstrikes they are engaging on Raqqa. If that's a police state, oh well.
 
Borders are fluid only between EU countries. As for members of ISIS there's from all kind of backgrounds, so I wouldn't generalize that this or that country is at fault. ISIS can be and is everywhere. Soon or late there will be riots if there haven't happen yet. But riots against what? Against terrorism? Against ISIS? Specify a little please.

My state (Arizona) is one of a few who are on a list of states that will not take in refugees. We already have enough problems of our own with illegals; Texas is on this list as well. Being completely and bluntly honest: I would much rather take in illegals with a Christian background than Muslim. Why? Undocumented workers are used to democracy, our laws are very similar and it is very easy for them to assimilate. Contrary to popular belief, they are not a drain on our Healthcare, etc. Most are young men working to send money back to Mexico and fear going anywhere that might tag them as illegal (facing deportation.) The only extreme problem with which I have an issue is the amount of illegal children crossing the border without an adult, thus becoming a ward of the state. The sad thing is even though we don't have the capability to deal with this in my own eyes, it is still a better outcome in their eyes. Muslim (extreme or not) are constantly trying to change our laws in order to cater to their religion. This flat out won't work and will end up dividing this country more than unify it.

Like I said in another thread: "peace" is defined differently from different cultures. What is peaceful to you and me is not peace to others. Riots will be over our dumbass President who has taken a backseat to this entire issue, not against Islam. If you watched his speech this morning at the summit you'll know what I'm talking about. The good people of Syria deserve to have their own country.
 
If you tolerate intolerance then really you just gimp yourself. This is really a "how can we have freedom when we have laws" question.

If you tolerate everyone based on a subjective sense of right and wrong, then you literally can't have any laws at all without being hypocritical. If you don't tolerate anyone then you're a tyrant. The choice to be in between is arbitrary, because who is to say what is really right or wrong in a normative and prescriptive aspect?

Tolerance is what lies between draconian tyranny and complete lawlessness.
 
That isn’t what I said nor implied.
I implied that you are a perfectly intelligent person capable of figuring it out if you pondered it.
But if you wish for me to spell it out I will.
I just didn’t want to insult your intelligence further (as it seems I have done) by explaining a simple quote.

Being overly nationalistic is destructive to society, as is racism and religious extremism.
These things create walls not tear them down between people and societies.
What is the process by which YOU think that nationalism, is destructive to a society? (As well as racism, and rel.extmsm).
What kind of walls do they put up?
Nationalism would seem at first glance to have the potential to bring people together under their own flag.
I don't want you to spell out what you stated - I want to understand your understanding of what you stated - and not to make assumptions.

Really? Good way to pigeon-hole yourself.
The point was I could care less if you read the book.
I suggested it to give you more context you desperately want.
How does he dismiss them as ‘non-people’?

Let’s ask the elephant in the room yes?
Are you offended by this quote because you see yourself in it?
You have grouped a lot of people lately into anti-muslim sentiments.

BTW, I was raised Mormon, I would sooner burn the book than send anyone a copy.
What I want is in the OP - a discussion/reasoning behind the views on these issues.
To call someone irrational is to dismiss the possibility of reasoning/conversing - ie. interacting as persons. He dismisses people based on their ideology.

No elephant here. My issue is with Islam - not with muslims. You see, I don't take the attitude of the author you quoted. He thinks more, or less of people based on their ideology.
Racism is when you reject someone because of an innate trait.
There is no bigotry in rejecting an ideology - my attitude is that muslims need liberating from such a perverse ideology as Islam.
 
this subject is fascinating....and i have more questions than answers

What does tolerant even mean anyway?

Tolerance is an interesting concept. The word- tolerate- sounds like an ugly word (to me). I think that I am probably....generally an intolerant person but... i find the concept confusing in general. Looking up the dictionary definitions and synonyms of tolerance....i dont believe that i could ask myself or anyone else to be tolerant except in a situation that was ....unavoidable, short term, and there was a plan to either end that situation, change that situation, or to remove oneself from that situation, or the object/persons/environment of toleration.

There is a big difference between accepting/loving/respecting a person, and accepting/loving/respecting his/her behaviour, beliefs, world views, attitude etc. And a bigger difference when faced with behaviours that are harmful. People are worthy of respect, dignity and hope regardless of actions...but this does not mean that actions that are intolerable should be respected and tolerated. People are more than their actions and their beliefs, and in my own opinion, actions and beliefs do not make a person...but the beliefs and actions define the experience of that person for the time that she/he choose to hold them. Blessedly, opinions and beliefs can change, especially if there is a cultural climate that allows freedom of thought and expression, and limits censorship. Conversely, I have found the surest way to ensure someone holds blindly onto a belief is to back them in to a corner, censor them, persecute them, make them feel stupid or inferior, threaten them, deny them information, deny them alternate viewpoints...basically anything that engenders fear, distrust and causes the person to go into defend/attack mode. If a person chooses to identify themselves with a belief/action rather than seeing the belief/action as something he/she holds...than the person will be on attack/defence autopilot mode trying to assert and justify their very identity in relation to others...and generally this manifests as close minded, hostile, and with either a superiority or inferiority complex.

Personally, I would throw away the concept of tolerance. And rather than judging/hating/condemning people for their beliefs and behaviours...i would make clear what my expectations for behaviour are, and demand accountability for the behaviour instead...after that said behaviour is committed...not before.

When someone comes to my house, either invited or uninvited, guest or friend, or new housemate...i expect them to be respectful (respect being a core value that I hold) of me, my family, and my home. If we do not share the same values and beliefs, and yet we have enough respect for each other to find other common ground, or to agree to a set of norms and values that we can abide with happily...then that's great, and that also creates future potential for exchanging of ideas based on respectful and mutually enjoyable communication. However, if we do not share the same values and beliefs, and there is no mutual respect to facilitate the creation of common ground and the sharing of ideas, than this situation would be intolerable if the person/s behaved in a manner which violated my beliefs. In this circumstance, I would either ask them to leave, or would ask them to change their behaviour if they wanted to remain at my home, or to explain the justification or rationalisation of said behaviour.

If I had a new house-mate moving in...i would explain to them what I expected and what was needed to operate the house efficiently, and set up a regular time to discuss things. This is pretty much what I have done in the past. I have lived with more people than I can count! A share-house is a great environment to examine the concept of tolerance...and probably why I know that personally...i cant abide living in a situation that I am unhappy, and it makes me unhappy to tolerate behaviours that I find intolerable.

Generally I believe that people should do what they want as long as it's consensual, open, and not hurting anyone. So there's a big scope for 'tolerance' there. I do not believe that it is okay to hurt people, tyrannically restrict people, or to force/coerce people into beliefs/actions. So in that situation I would be intolerant. When we agree to live in a group, individual desires do need to be balanced with group/social desires. The individual should not be sacrificed for the group, nor the group sacrificed for the individual. The only way to achieve a good balance is to have shared values, open communication, a socially mobile society, privacy, and accountability, and pathways for recourse. Generally this is better achieved with democratic libertarian secular societies, which tend to be more transparent and more accountable to the people.

In the case of religious and cultural immigration, refugees, multiculturalism.... things can get messy...and ugly on all sides...but I believe that it 'should' be simple. People are welcome into the home, the share house....and they must treat the house and its people with respect. No one has to be 'nice', simply respectful and polite. As always, example is the best way to model desirable behaviour, as well as making sure that our desire for this is communicated clearly. Everyone can believe whatever the hell they like, as long as their actions abide by the laws of the nation that they have chosen to reside in, and they are held accountable for their actions. If they want, they can take action to change these laws...using the same process available to all citizens.

In regards to things like traditions and customs and fashions and diets....these things can be either used to enjoy life by shared meaningful experience...or they can simply create separation. In regards to the toleration of these things....who cares unless it is in violation of laws or are used to hurt people.
In saying all these...i found that generally intolerance attracts intolerance, as tolerance attracts tolerance. And I am even more confused about what tolerance actually means. I dont think it is the same as acceptance, or condoning....but to tolerate something...are we in effect condoning it? Does the difference matter? Or is it arbitrary when the results are the same?

and sorry for going on tangent and off topic
 
I've noticed this. I think it is because people are now taught tolerance is the ultimate supreme virtue over everything else, and they don't question that at all. I don't know why. What's happening is people are starting to tolerate some serious shit they wouldn't normally tolerate if they thought about it, all for the sake of tolerance. There are times when intolerance is a virtue.

Being tolerant doesn't make you a good person and it's not always the right thing to do.

I for example, am intolerant. I do not tolerate things that are repulsive to me for the sake of being tolerant because I don't think being tolerant makes someone a good person. I hate child abuse and the mistreatment of women. I do not tolerate it. I do not tolerate any person, idea, groups that abuse children or support the mistreatment or inequality of women for the sake of being tolerant. I just can't do it.

I'm still a cooperative, nice person. I can be tolerant but I'm not always tolerant of everything or everyone. I don't really care what names I'm called or who decides I can't sit at their lunch table. I don't really care to surround myself with people who like to shame other people and use deceitful wording anyway (phobia for everyhing).
 
My point exactly re art therapy and the like for terrorists.

I'm fine with a police state in some places for some people who need it. If major terrorist attacks and threats against a nation and leaders of state is bating, then yes, the US is being bated. If another 9/11 or Boston marathon type situation occurs, one cannot say we were not warned. It is not insanity or paranoia to respond to these threats in a warlike manner given empirical experience. That said, I am not so much for war as for everyone tightening up immigration. What the Michigan governor did recently here in the US (especially given that certain areas of MI are in fact reasonably suspected of having terrorist cells) makes perfect sense to me. For the French to deport the entirety of their squalid migrant camps makes perfect sense to me also. Much more so than the airstrikes they are engaging on Raqqa. If that's a police state, oh well.

Are we talking all immigrants from all countries or are we just talking immigrants from certain countries who are a certain race or belonging to a certain religion? What about those who have gone through all of the formal applications and are legitimately applying for asylum? That is a VERY slippery slope.

Also, living under a police state sounds like as much fun as living in North Korea. I don't think it's the right choice anywhere unless you have a large group of people rising up and trying to take over for the worse. But what if these groups are getting financial support from the outside?

It's a lot more complicated than sending people home or putting strict curfews and such on an entire nation.

We've had terrorists plots and killings here but I would never expect my government to essentially punish millions of people to suss out the few that are trying to cause damage.
 
I've noticed this. I think it is because people are now taught tolerance is the ultimate supreme virtue over everything else, and they don't question that at all. I don't know why. What's happening is people are starting to tolerate some serious shit they wouldn't normally tolerate if they thought about it, all for the sake of tolerance. There are times when intolerance is a virtue.

Being tolerant doesn't make you a good person and it's not always the right thing to do.

I for example, am intolerant. I do not tolerate things that are repulsive to me for the sake of being tolerant because I don't think being tolerant makes someone a good person. I hate child abuse and the mistreatment of women. I do not tolerate it. I do not tolerate any person, idea, groups that abuse children or support the mistreatment or inequality of women for the sake of being tolerant. I just can't do it.

I'm still a cooperative, nice person. I can be tolerant but I'm not always tolerant of everything or everyone. I don't really care what names I'm called or who decides I can't sit at their lunch table. I don't really care to surround myself with people who like to shame other people and use deceitful wording anyway (phobia for everyhing).

I think tolerance needs to come from a place of rationality but I actually believe most people use the word "tolerance" because in some cases the subject matter is sensitive and they are afraid to be honest about what they think and feel because of how others react: ie public shaming and resulting in the labels you are talking about (I have been called a lot of things because of peoples.... "tolerance" lol). I think that on a fundamental level most of humanity will recognize certain behaviours and ideologies is wrong and harmful. When it comes to what is intolerable over in other countries or belief systems it is very tricky because their culture tends to be exceptionally old and for whatever reason they have not grown away from it fully. Same in North America with racism and gay marriage and marijuana I suppose. I've always wondered what makes them hold onto their belief systems as a very large, collective group especially with so much access to everywhere else in the world that seems to be moving on. Fear to lose control, I suppose.

I think if everyone involved is a willing participant it doesn't bother me but I do find that any belief or culture that embraces harming and attacking other people needs some re-evaluation. I am not sure how that will happen. Maybe in younger generations.
 
[MENTION=4956]charlene[/MENTION] makes a good point. If one is going to be asked to tolerate something, it must be for an exceedingly good reason, with compensatory consideration - AND the reply should be: for how long, with what support?

I think the only reasonable response could be in terms of the practical amount of time for the situation to be brought to satisfactory, with alternative situations made available.
 
What is the process by which YOU think that nationalism, is destructive to a society? (As well as racism, and rel.extmsm).
What kind of walls do they put up?
Nationalism would seem at first glance to have the potential to bring people together under their own flag.
I don't want you to spell out what you stated - I want to understand your understanding of what you stated - and not to make assumptions.

All those things have the possibility to bring people together not just nationalism - but the question is for what purpose and who is being excluded because of the extreme/or not version of those three things?
Is it doing more good than naught?


What I want is in the OP - a discussion/reasoning behind the views on these issues.
To call someone irrational is to dismiss the possibility of reasoning/conversing - ie. interacting as persons. He dismisses people based on their ideology.

No elephant here. My issue is with Islam - not with muslims. You see, I don't take the attitude of the author you quoted. He thinks more, or less of people based on their ideology.
Racism is when you reject someone because of an innate trait.

^^^How is that different than what you have said about Islam?...which happens to include a billion or so Muslims (whether you have an issue with the individuals or not).
 
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

This is the mentality Christians should have. However, human beings are no where near to being like Christ. He knows that, so in that quote he is saying it to all his children.
 
All those things have the possibility to bring people together not just nationalism - but the question is for what purpose and who is being excluded because of the extreme/or not version of those three things?
Is it doing more good than naught?




^^^How is that different than what you have said about Islam?...which happens to include a billion or so Muslims (whether you have an issue with the individuals or not).
Nationalism seems to exclude those who hold themselves apart/aloof/against the rest.

I think 'hating' Islam is no different from hating any other ideology, like hating Communism. There are more than a billion communists in the world. However, the number of people/persons I actually hate is probably zero - although there are about half a dozen people I know that I actively struggle not to hate.

With muslims, communists, and holders of some other ideologies my attitude is: bad choice IMO, your choice... and I don't want your choices leading to any interference with my choices. (Which is part of my problem with both Islam and Communism - they are interfering/aggressive ideologies: you can't live under communism, nor islam and expect to have your choice about many things).
 
Nationalism seems to exclude those who hold themselves apart/aloof/against the rest.

I think 'hating' Islam is no different from hating any other ideology, like hating Communism. There are more than a billion communists in the world. However, the number of people/persons I actually hate is probably zero - although there are about half a dozen people I know that I actively struggle not to hate.

With muslims, communists, and holders of some other ideologies my attitude is: bad choice IMO, your choice... and I don't want your choices leading to any interference with my choices. (Which is part of my problem with both Islam and Communism - they are interfering/aggressive ideologies: you can't live under communism, nor islam and expect to have your choice about many things).

But you see…it’s not just an ideology when you say you hate it…it’s their religion and way of life and all most have ever known.
Nationalism is fine to hold/bring a country together as a people in the wake of a disaster or attack, but it’s bounds are easily overstepped into the realm of an “us against them” mentality quite too often.

I don’t disagree that living under certain ideologies is more difficult, I certainly don’t want to convert to Islam, just as I don’t want to be a Mormon, or a Roman Catholic, or this or that.

As with many religions - the Muslim religion has it’s rules and in some places it isn’t an easy thing to just walk away from…not because they will be killed or some BS, but because it brings love and joy into their lives, it is the religion of their family just as many families here in the West.

Still not worried about the actions of the few…if this things gets blown out of proportion then it will be from people giving into fear and hate - then you really will see a “Holy War”, and believe me, both sides are ready to kill each other.

I don’t accept that as our only option.
 
But you see…it’s not just an ideology when you say you hate it…it’s their religion and way of life and all most have ever known.
Nationalism is fine to hold/bring a country together as a people in the wake of a disaster or attack, but it’s bounds are easily overstepped into the realm of an “us against them” mentality quite too often.

I don’t disagree that living under certain ideologies is more difficult, I certainly don’t want to convert to Islam, just as I don’t want to be a Mormon, or a Roman Catholic, or this or that.

As with many religions - the Muslim religion has it’s rules and in some places it isn’t an easy thing to just walk away from…not because they will be killed or some BS, but because it brings love and joy into their lives, it is the religion of their family just as many families here in the West.

Still not worried about the actions of the few…if this things gets blown out of proportion then it will be from people giving into fear and hate - then you really will see a “Holy War”, and believe me, both sides are ready to kill each other.

I don’t accept that as our only option.

As long as someone holds a different religion; as long as they cannot live by their own laws within countries which have different laws, there will always be tension (even if there is none on our part). You might change some, or many individual's attitudes - but you cannot change Islam. And there is no precedent anywhere in history where Islam does not eventually end up suppressing the local culture/freedoms/beliefs. There is also no precedent where any area once established in Islam ever becomes anything else, except through bloody conflict.

I do not think Islam should be "wiped out", but like a permanent, irremovable tattoo, I think we ought to be cautious about how much global coverage/area we are willing to eventually become virtually exclusively Islamic.

The way things are in Europe at the moment there are three possibilities for a time about 40 years from now:
1. Non-muslims will be a minority, with special exemptions from the law (Islam does not treat minorities well - I don't think there would be one good example to the contrary anywhere in the world today).
2. Non-muslims will be a persecuted minority.
3. There will have been a terrible conflict/civil war and either non-muslims; or muslims will have been virtually expelled/killed in most of Europe, or segregated into quasi-country/states.
 
As long as someone holds a different religion; as long as they cannot live by their own laws within countries which have different laws, there will always be tension (even if there is none on our part). You might change some, or many individual's attitudes - but you cannot change Islam. And there is no precedent anywhere in history where Islam does not eventually end up suppressing the local culture/freedoms/beliefs. There is also no precedent where any area once established in Islam ever becomes anything else, except through bloody conflict.

I do not think Islam should be "wiped out", but like a permanent, irremovable tattoo, I think we ought to be cautious about how much global coverage/area we are willing to eventually become virtually exclusively Islamic.

The way things are in Europe at the moment there are three possibilities for a time about 40 years from now:
1. Non-muslims will be a minority, with special exemptions from the law (Islam does not treat minorities well - I don't think there would be one good example to the contrary anywhere in the world today).
2. Non-muslims will be a persecuted minority.
3. There will have been a terrible conflict/civil war and either non-muslims; or muslims will have been virtually expelled/killed in most of Europe, or segregated into quasi-country/states.

Yep, this is precisely what will happen. I honestly never thought I'd say this, but I hope far right parties and politicians come to power in Europe and the U.S. (if these projections are accurate). People need to preserve their countries, cultures, collective identities and so on. People really do need nationalism and a healthy degree of "Islamophobia." This goes doubly for Sweden. They have a much smaller indigenous population and have been embracing migrants from the third world since the 70s.

See, the real problem is that these people bring the third world with them. It's no wonder Africa and the Middle East are in complete disorder. Countries aren't the third world - these people are. And wherever they go they'll create the third world. That is to say, they'll create a society in their image.

Personally, I'm for deportation and complete INTOLERANCE of Islam. Europe and the entire West need to be preserved. I've seen and read enough to know that muslims do not belong in the West.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top