Is being intolerant of the intolerant hypocritical?

[SummerRain]

Perhaps it is intolerant not to like them but I would rather be intolerant than be on the wrong side of history.

I don't think it's intolerant not to like people because of their beliefs - you like or dislike people based on lots of factors, and how they act and what they say and what they believe is a big part of that.

Equally, if somebody acts on their beliefs in a way that is illegal/discriminatory/etc, then responding to that isn't intolerance either. E.g. locking somebody up for committing a hate crime.

Not liking somebody is different from firing them. I think firing somebody because of their beliefs, whatever those beliefs are, is intolerant, and more importantly, wrong.

 

[Spang]

I think firing somebody because of their beliefs, whatever those beliefs are, is intolerant, and more importantly, wrong.

Eich wasn't fired, though. He and Mozilla came to a mutual agreement. It was a good business decision.

Regardless, the idea that a CEO should never be fired for being racist, misogynist, heterosexist, transphobic, ableist, etc. is nonsense. And to equate Eich's "firing" to that of a lowly worker is equally preposterous.

 

[Moll Flanders]

Eich wasn't fired, though. He and Mozilla came to a mutual agreement. It was a good business decision.

I agree, having a person with those type of views would be bad business as it will alienate a lot of people/customers. Being against same sex marriage will (hopefully) soon seem like a stone age view.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist people suck. Perhaps it is intolerant not to like them but I would rather be intolerant than be on the wrong side of history. So there.

I personally agree.

 

[Clueless Git]

... I would rather be intolerant than be on the wrong side of history. So there.

Due to a rare brain condition I shall be thinking about that line for at least a week.

 

[Spang]

Being against same sex marriage will (hopefully) soon seem like a stone age view.

We're seeing more and more folks questioning and challenging homophobia, which is a good thing. But there are still far too many people defending it.

Also, marriage shouldn't be the bellwether of the LGBT struggle.

 

[Mischief]

I'm wondering whether those who think that Mozilla should have retained Eich would feel the same if he had instead donated money to the KKK?

 

[beancounter]

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist people suck. Perhaps it is intolerant not to like them but I would rather be intolerant than be on the wrong side of history. So there.

I think you're confusing "like" with "tolerate".

 

[beancounter]

You're assuming all intolerance is equal, which is a not-very-well-thought-out position that leads to a moral vacuum.

I'm intolerant of cruelty. I assume most members here are, otherwise they wouldn't be veg*n.

Yes, I guess you can claim that whether intolerance is based on the "right" reasons is subjective; you can claim that intolerance toward murder, pedophilia, rape, etc. is just as subjective as intolerance toward bigotry - it makes just as much sense. As I said, your argument leads to a moral vacuum.

Yea, you have to draw the line somewhere, that's why it's subjective, but intolerance is still intolerance.

 

[Ann Chovie]

If you are intolerant of any group ..
for example racists
because they are intolerant of those of a different race
Then you are just as intolerant as they are
The only difference is the choice of group you are intolerant of

 

[Mischief]

If you are intolerant of any group ..
for example racists
because they are intolerant of those of a different race
Then you are just as intolerant as they are
The only difference is the choice of group you are intolerant of

You don't see a difference between being intolerant of a group because of their beliefs and/or actions, and being intolerant of someone because of attributes with which they were born?

 

[Spang]

It wouldn't bother me at all if someone considered me intolerant of the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, NAMBLA, mens rights groups, fascists, etc.

 

[ledboots]

You don't see a difference between being intolerant of a group because of their beliefs and/or actions, and being intolerant of someone because of attributes with which they were born?

The CEO donated the money because he was against same sex marriage, not because he was intolerant of gays. In 2008, the majority of the country agreed with him on the marriage issue.

As far as I've heard, he didn't fire people for being gay, refuse to hire them, or do anything in the workplace to discriminate that has come to light. He donated money to a political group. A stupid group, yes, but there are lots of stupid political causes to heave money at.

 

[FortyTwo]

Tolerance is stupid anyway.

We don't want toleration, we want universal acceptance, thorough and complete. And putting people who clearly disagree in positions where they can exercise that power even more thoroughly than their affluence already allows them to, especially through something as socially important as a heavily-used internet browser, is directly contradictory to those goals.

So, no, I don't tolerate Eich, and I certainly don't accept him. Everyone has opinions, and him having opinions doesn't give him some get-out-of-jail-free card. I'm not going to respect someone who doesn't think I deserve rights just because he has political beliefs.

We can throw the "freedom of speech" debate right out the window, by the way, because A) he stepped down and wasn't fired and B) even if he had been fired, companies are capable of taking action based on their policies. If Mozilla had, for example, sent a trained assassin to threaten Eich at gunpoint into reversing his viewpoint? That would be infringement on his freedom of speech. But that's not what happened. Mozilla and Eich realized they had a PR disaster on their hands and so they came to the conclusion that he should step down from their company. By working for a company you're in a sort of agreement with them that you abide by their rules. If a company, as a whole entity, decides an employee isn't following a code of conduct - whether it's public endorsement of hate legislation or, I don't know, something ridiculous like dressing hamsters up in tiny sweaters - they have every right to fire that employee. And that's not even what happened.

The CEO donated the money because he was against same sex marriage, not because he was intolerant of gays. In 2008, the majority of the country agreed with him on the marriage issue.

Huh? If someone is against same-sex legal unions, they're against LGBTQ people, no exceptions.

As far as I've heard, he didn't fire people for being gay, refuse to hire them, or do anything in the workplace to discriminate that has come to light. He donated money to a political group. A stupid group, yes, but there are lots of stupid political causes to heave money at.

Exactly. He did something that didn't sit well with the public, there was outcry, and an executive decision was made. You don't have to fire people for being LGBTQ to prove yourself an active discriminator.

 

[ledboots]

Tolerance is stupid anyway.

We don't want toleration, we want universal acceptance, thorough and complete. And putting people who clearly disagree in positions where they can exercise that power even more thoroughly than their affluence already allows them to, especially through something as socially important as a heavily-used internet browser, is directly contradictory to those goals.
~snip~ [agree with your freedom of speech points.]

Huh? If someone is against same-sex legal unions, they're against LGBTQ people, no exceptions.
.

There were many people in 2008, including the President, who were against marriage for same sex couples but supported civil unions and other equal rights for all. I think it is the Bible "Man and a woman" thing. I don't think it makes someone completely against LGBTQ people to have had these views.

Our society has come a long way on this topic in those few short years since '08, with a majority now supporting marriage for all. But this Mozilla businessman (and inventor of javascript, I read) donated a thousand bucks in '08 because he was against the highly publicized California same sex marriage amendment, and is then forced out of his job for it 6 years later.

Because of the Freedom of Information Act, political donation information is in the public domain. I wonder who else donated to groups that others may not like? Should they be investigated and forced from their jobs? Should Chik fila fire their executives who donated in *favor* of same sex marriage because it doesn't agree with the homophobic owner guy's opinion? Should those who donated to Florida's upcoming medical marijuana amendment be scrutinized and removed from their private company jobs depending upon their opinions if their boss disagrees?

No one is ever going to agree on everything, so tolerance is certainly not a stupid goal, in my opinion. I'd be happy if people tolerated vegans more than they do, for example. Expecting everyone to universally accept vegans is a lofty and probably unreachable goal.

 

[Moll Flanders]

There were many people in 2008, including the President, who were against marriage for same sex couples but supported civil unions and other equal rights for all. I think it is the Bible "Man and a woman" thing. I don't think it makes someone completely against LGBTQ people to have had these views.

But civil unions instead of being "allowed" to get married isn't equal treatment. I doubt I would ever get married again but I would like the right to get married to a woman if I fell in love, or just wanted to marry her for the money.

 

[ledboots]

But civil unions instead of being "allowed" to get married isn't equal treatment. I doubt I would ever get married again but I would like the right to get married to a woman if I fell in love, or just wanted to marry her for the money.

I agree that civil unions are not equal treatment, and I also think it is stupid to act like man/woman marriage is so special when people get divorced half the time anyway. Any adult should be allowed to marry any other adult imo, and I include polygamy in that too, which I know isn't a very popular opinion, but people should be able to live how they choose, as long as they aren't trampling anyone else's rights. I also think people should be able to donate to any ridiculous political cause they choose to without repercussions.

 

[FortyTwo]

There were many people in 2008, including the President, who were against marriage for same sex couples but supported civil unions and other equal rights for all. I think it is the Bible "Man and a woman" thing. I don't think it makes someone completely against LGBTQ people to have had these views.

Is someone completely against people of color if they believe that only white people should be able to get married?

I mean, they'd still be supporting other equal rights.

(Not to mention, in most cases they don't support other equal rights. Same-sex marriage is kind-of a tame, bare-minimum thing, believe it or not. There are still trans kids dying on the street that even the general liberal movement doesn't seem to give a **** about.)

Our society has come a long way on this topic in those few short years since '08, with a majority now supporting marriage for all. But this Mozilla businessman (and inventor of javascript, I read) donated a thousand bucks in '08 because he was against the highly publicized California same sex marriage amendment, and is then forced out of his job for it 6 years later.

The past can come back and bite you in the butt sometimes, can't it?

Note that regardless of the time interval in-between he refused to say anything about changing his views. Even in the face of a crisis that threatened his economic prosperity! Sounds like pretty dedicated ignorance to me.

Because of the Freedom of Information Act, political donation information is in the public domain. I wonder who else donated to groups that others may not like? Should they be investigated and forced from their jobs? Should Chik fila fire their executives who donated in *favor* of same sex marriage because it doesn't agree with the homophobic owner guy's opinion? Should those who donated to Florida's upcoming medical marijuana amendment be scrutinized and removed from their private company jobs depending upon their opinions if their boss disagrees?

I don't believe they should be, but if these companies decided to do that, then they're not violating freedom of speech.

No one is ever going to agree on everything, so tolerance is certainly not a stupid goal, in my opinion. I'd be happy if people tolerated vegans more than they do, for example. Expecting everyone to universally accept vegans is a lofty and probably unreachable goal.

Dismantle the power structures behind the kind of oppression that allows people to get away with being hateful assholes and you end up with a world where people aren't being taught that it's okay to act like that from the beginning of their lives. It'd be nice if people who believed LGBTQ people deserve less than everyone else got the same kind of treatment by society as, say, white supremacists. But no, instead we're told that these people have a right to their opinion, and we're just as bad as them if we try and fight back. Which, although you certainly mean well, is a notion that your attitude toward this supports.

It might not be a good idea to compare LGBTQ struggles to veganism, either... I mean, we chose veganism for ourselves. If someone doesn't want to offer me vegan food then sure, they might be a dick, but I understand that veganism is a choice I made. LGBTQ people don't have the opportunity to just stop being who we are. We can't rewire our brains, and we sure as hell wouldn't want to if we could.

 

[Envy]

Who knows. I think it would be wise to separate the person and the opinion at some times, however.

 

[Mischief]

Is someone completely against people of color if they believe that only white people should be able to get married?

I mean, they'd still be supporting other equal rights.

(Not to mention, in most cases they don't support other equal rights. Same-sex marriage is kind-of a tame, bare-minimum thing, believe it or not. There are still trans kids dying on the street that even the general liberal movement doesn't seem to give a **** about.)


The past can come back and bite you in the butt sometimes, can't it?

Note that regardless of the time interval in-between he refused to say anything about changing his views. Even in the face of a crisis that threatened his economic prosperity! Sounds like pretty dedicated ignorance to me.


I don't believe they should be, but if these companies decided to do that, then they're not violating freedom of speech.


Dismantle the power structures behind the kind of oppression that allows people to get away with being hateful assholes and you end up with a world where people aren't being taught that it's okay to act like that from the beginning of their lives. It'd be nice if people who believed LGBTQ people deserve less than everyone else got the same kind of treatment by society as, say, white supremacists. But no, instead we're told that these people have a right to their opinion, and we're just as bad as them if we try and fight back. Which, although you certainly mean well, is a notion that your attitude toward this supports.

It might not be a good idea to compare LGBTQ struggles to veganism, either... I mean, we chose veganism for ourselves. If someone doesn't want to offer me vegan food then sure, they might be a dick, but I understand that veganism is a choice I made. LGBTQ people don't have the opportunity to just stop being who we are. We can't rewire our brains, and we sure as hell wouldn't want to if we could.

Great post.

Who knows. I think it would be wise to separate the person and the opinion at some times, however.

As in, "Apart from the fact that he thinks all people of color should be deported to Africa, he's a great person"?

Our opinions are part of who we are, as are our actions.

 

[Envy]

As in, "Apart from the fact that he thinks all people of color should be deported to Africa, he's a great person"?

Our opinions are part of who we are, as are our actions.

Hyperboles aside, the reasons and reasonings for our opinions will not all be the same.