I find it funny that essentially the same claim, worded two different ways, can have such different "agree/disagree" ratios. (See picture inside)

One of those claims is far more general than the other.

If the spread was the other way, then it wouldn't make sense.

Those are completely different claims.

Could you elaborate? You normally have a pretty convincing explanation for things that you say. My point was just that "intolerance" and "racism" are closely related topics, yet somehow one should be allowed and the other shouldn't.

Although technically one could ban racism but allow other forms of intolerance.

It is impossible to ban intolerance. That is a form of intolerance. If you tolerate everything, you tolerate intolerance, if you don't, you have a form of intolerance. I don't think we should do the impossible, and besides, we can't.

Racism is much more specific, and it is possible to at least make a decent go of banning racism or otherwise not tolerating it.

Also, racism is, as far as I'm concerned, bad. Intolerance is neutral, as it depends what is being tolerated and what isn't.

I just don't see why racial intolerance is worse than, say, religious intolerance or homophobia.

It isn't necessarily, but those claims have nothing to do with which is worse, racial intolerance or homophobia. Actually, religious intolerance is a tricky one, because historically some religions you should be intolerant of, such as the ones that practiced human sacrifice, often not of volunteers.

However, it compares all intolerance, which includes things like not tolerating racism, which I think is much better than racism.

"However, it compares all intolerance, which includes things like not tolerating racism, which I think is much better than racism."

So intolerance of racism is tolerated, but intolerance of intolerance is not tolerated? Color me confused.

"The intolerance that exists in racism is intolerance of people. Intolerance of racism is intolerance of an idea or attitude. They aren't really the same thing."

Admittedly, it's easier to un-racist-ify oneself than to un-color-ify oneself (although Michael Jackson somehow did it), but I don't think anyone deliberately CHOOSES to become a racist; it's as much a product of environment growing up as color is a product of genetics.

In the interest of open discussion, I think it's hypocritical not to tolerate racism just because we think it's an unenlightened world-view.

I think it's impolite to tolerate racism. And I have Judith Martin on my side. link

Anything that encourages racism is a greater act of negativity than making someone uncomfortable for having a harmful belief.

I see no need to tolerate all views, no matter how the person acquired them. If I knew of someone raised in a religion that felt it vital to sacrifice some newborn babies to the gods, I wouldn't tolerate that either. It's a good, historical example as they found the mass of tiny, tiny skeletons to go with it.

Tolerance is not itself a virtue. It is entirely a matter of what you tolerate and what you do not.

I am intollerant of many things. I am not, however, racist. I hate people for myriad individual reasons.

I'm not talking about tolerating racism in general, just on jyte (since that's what the two circled claims are about). I'm not even talking about keeping the individual users from telling blatant racists to fuck off. I'm talking about official policy.

If you let someone say whatever is on her mind, then people are given an opportunity to respond and opinions can be changed that way. If you just tell them that they can't talk here then they move on to some intellectual cesspool like Stormfront (is that what it was called?) where they can just be reinforced by people with the same views.

Plus, I've never been one to care much about "politeness."

Oh, I'm in favor of allowing racists to speak their mind. Not in every place, of course, but on Jyte, sure. I think we can handle it. But I also think it's very important for individual Jyters to call them disgusting and wrong, because otherwise we may make people think this is a place where racism is tolerated in the other meaning of it, and that will make many good people not want to be here.

Let them speak. Let us speak against them. That's my view.

Ah ha. We were arguing different things; I suppose my original comprehension of the circled claims was flawed.

That was the point I was making. I believe that we must tolerate both racism and intolerance, but very few people think that D'Archangel shouldn't be able to make intolerant claims which aren't actually racist (no insult intended D'Arch, but you strike me as a pretty good face of tolerates little/not racist since the me argument seems to have fallen flat).