Shared by lefty friends about the peace they want
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (100)
sorted by:
Tolerance is bad. There is no argument.
Either something is unacceptable (i.e. intolerable) and so should not be tolerated.
OR
Something is acceptable, and does not need to be tolerated.
Tolerance is a weasel word that stands in for "things I think are permissible should be permissible, and things that violate my line of acceptable behavior should not" which is the exact same thing every person ever born believes.
Perhaps tolerance in the way that they use the word. But I don't allow leftists to define words for me. I prefer to use tolerance in its original meaning.
Which is nothing. Tolerance means you tolerate things that can be safely tolerable. Anything more is excessive anything less is retarded.
It's not a word that communicates any meaning. Other than "things are annoying but not bad enough for me to act on"
Which sure might be a fine meaning but it isn't a VIRTUE since every single person on planet earth has, and does, do that by default.
It's like trying to claim that "gas milage" is a Virtue of a car. "Oh it has gas milage!" Yeah no shit retard.
Tolerance as a virtue generally implies self-restraint where appropriate. For example, if someone says something that pisses you off, you tolerate it to the extent that you don't chimp out and murder them over it. Or if you have children or family members that get on your nerves, you tolerate them rather than cutting them off or lashing out over petty matters.
There isn't really any need to redefine the word. Tolerance in its original meaning was already perfectly sensible
Thank you, this definition argument is eloquent and useful for the future.
Things can be unacceptable but still needing to be tolerated.
Someone's baby crying at an inopportune moment for example. You have a low chance of stopping it, and most actions taken will only make the situation worse for no gain. You don't tolerate the behavior of the parent, because they are in the wrong for not removing the baby from the situation, you tolerate the situation for your own sake.
Letting them control language and how words are used is just ceding ground to them endlessly. Needing to remove all nuance from how you speak to nail every single word and concept down to pure black and white nonsense is just admitting they have won and destroyed our ability to just understand something without spelling it out for a debate team.
By definition, if you accept something. It's acceptable OR you're a failure.
Tolerance can be meaningful. But its not a Virtue, at best is a descriptor and most generally it's a vice.
Its not a virtue, but it is a necessity because we don't live in a perfect world where things always work out with logic and reason.
I gave you a concrete example of a situation where it is necessary for your own benefit, while you keep talking in philosophical circles.
That's idiotic. I am tolerating your stupid opinions right now. That doesn't mean your freedom to express yourself is unacceptable.