Tolerance?

[piece-it pete]

We live with a heart beating for tolerance nowdays :D .

However I see very little of it on both sides of the political divide. I realise we have always been this way to a degree, but at the top layers of our gov't there was "usually" at least a show of respect for the "other" guy.

Why do you think this happened, and is it as bad as it seems?

I really haven't given this much thought - I'm not trolling. Just curious what people think.

Pete

[kexodusc]

Hi Pete - I don't think it's any worse in reality than ever.
But I think the general public has wisened up. The majority of people aren't aligned with either political side, but rather vote on issues. Often it's the perceived lesser of two evils.
I think this has forced both sides into sensationalizing the differences between them in order to stand out and capture attention. Or make the other guy look bad. Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires. Sometimes people get carried away and tolerance is lost.
I guess it all depends on your definition of tolerant. If we were REALLY intolerant, there'd be civil wars right now. The absence of this could suggest there is plenty of tolerance remaining.

[Haru]

Pete,
The higher level(s) of tolerance that we pat ourselves on the back for nowaday is in itself questionable. What it has come to mean is "You must conform to my way of thinking or you have no compassion or tolerance". Or should I say, You must tolerate my political ideology and embrace it, I on the other hand will reserve the right to not tolerate or except yours, because I am right and you are wrong.

Kind of contradictory and hypocritical dont you think?

Haru

[Swerd]

Hi Pete
I agree, we seem to see very little tolerance on both sides of the political divide. What could be causing this? A few of my random thoughts:

The first two are based on the idea that things are not so bad as they would seem.


The demands of the round-the-clock coverage on cable TV news channels emphasize extremes in points of view just to generate headlines. The emergence of news organizations such as Fox News (and I use the term "news" in its loosest definition) have blurred the distinction between fact-based journalism and TV entertainment such as wrestling.
During elections, both sides are actually pretty similar, causing the political pitchmen to try to exagerate the differences.
The next ones take the opposite approach, that we are indeed getting more intolerant.


The draft used to be the great mixer and equalizer in our society. Its absence since the early 70's have allowed people from different regions to become more isolated.
The emergence of outspokenly fundamentalist religions (they were always there, but they used to be less public) has generated an increased level of intolerance.
Got any other suggestions?

[Justlisten2]

Who has time to answer this stupid question!!! It's frigging ridiculous!!
Tolerence this!!! :rolleyes:

[fropiler]

We live with a heart beating for tolerance nowdays :D .

However I see very little of it on both sides of the political divide. I realise we have always been this way to a degree, but at the top layers of our gov't there was "usually" at least a show of respect for the "other" guy.

Why do you think this happened, and is it as bad as it seems?

I really haven't given this much thought - I'm not trolling. Just curious what people think.

Pete

Hi Pete,

I just spent half the day reading the gay marriage thread on this board. I concluded that I don't have anything to contribute that hasn't already been more eloquently stated by certain others. But I sure did have to "tolerate" some crap along the way as well.

Tolerance has it's place when it comes to politics, for sure. I think we do a pretty good job overall. I also believe there are certain things that should not be tolerated. Racism, Hatred, Lies, Corruption, and a general unwillingness to change what needs changing just for the sake of winning the debate, or the race, rank high on my list.

Then there are times when one party is right, and the other is wrong. Truth exists either way. When it is made clear that one is wrong about something, failure to adjust to the truth need not be tolerated. Broad and sweeping, I know. But it works for me. :D

Ed

[Resident Loser]

We live with a heart beating for tolerance nowdays :D .

However I see very little of it on both sides of the political divide. I realise we have always been this way to a degree, but at the top layers of our gov't there was "usually" at least a show of respect for the "other" guy.

Why do you think this happened, and is it as bad as it seems?Pete

...my mom would oftimes say, "...give 'em an inch and they'll take a foot..." I think it's just that the "silent majority" has chosen to break it's silence in the face of things that confront and offend them on a daily basis...

There was an old saying re: politics..."Politics is the art of telling a man to go to he!! in a way that would make him look forward to making the trip"...With regards to the "top layers", is it a show of more honesty or have they, like nearly all facets of society, just gotten lousy at their jobs?

jimHJJ(...to paraphrase what has been so eloquently put earlier, "tolerate THIS!"...)

[twochannelsonly]

The world today has much more tolerance than it ever has had...mostly becuase the people in the world have put a bunch of sissy ass whoosies in charge of everything.

What made Gangas Kan successful , he didnt leave anyone alive to tell anyone else how to stop him.

The other option is fear and we are seeing 1st hand what that will do.

Lets define whoosies for a second... ....

A whoosie is someone who fights a WAR from behind a desk. There wouldnt be as much war if they had to fight themselves... ... ... or would there? I think not.

Food for thought kinda sucks doesnt it?

[piece-it pete]

JL, :lmao: . I'm intolerant of your intolerance toward tolerance and the threads that advocate discussions regarding same. I feel the urge to go discriminate against someone now. Where's a good whipping boy when you need them?

Aw heck any ol' Liberal will do :D .

Swerd you got me thinking, that's a good post. Interesting comment on the draft. I'm thinking we kinda teach kids to act more radical now, too. As far as the Christian right, I propose that, far from becoming more outspoken have watched as society as a whole has moved farther and farther from any moral standard and now are simply flexing the muscle they have always had, from a viewpoint they always had. (That's from the horses mouth, as it were ;) )

The news, too, is good. There seems to be no discretion anymore, no difference between a major thing and a more minor one, all are shouted from the mountiantops equally. Singling out Fox is unfair. As a matter of fact, most specifics of your post are aimed squarely at the Right.

Hello Ed! Had to join the fun? I have been called most of the bad things mentioned in your post, and have tolerated it. Therefore I am tolerant, because I have tolerated things that were wrong. Right?

Whether a party is wrong or right is up to each voter. Election day will validate one or the other party. I do agree there is truth.

RL, I'm not sure they've gotten worse in their jobs, I think they've got BETTER at fleecing us :yes: ! As I write this and ponder the issue and comments I'm coming to the conclusion that they're using the emotionally laden term "intolerant" to further their political ambitions, as they can't convince the silent majority to accept their positions with intellegent debate. I am very intolerant of bullying.

Off topic, but I have to ask: tc, do you think we'd be better served if the Presidents lead the troops in battle?

Pete

[Swerd]

Do you think we'd be better served if the Presidents lead the troops in battle?Not quite. Generals should lead soldiers, not run the government. Presidents should be civilians who know first-hand what it is like to be a soldier. Requiring that they know first-hand what it is like to fight in a war is going a bit too far. That would require that we had wars every generation.

Few ex-generals made good presidents - Washington and Eisenhower may be the only ones. Washington was unique. We will never again see the same circumstances he faced. Eisenhower was a fair president, much better than Taylor or Grant. Andrew Jackson is a toss-up, he is better remembered for what he did as president than what he did as a general. The best war presidents were civilians, Lincoln and Roosevelt, and maybe Truman. Lincoln and Truman, but not Roosevelt, had military experience when they were younger.

[twochannelsonly]

Thanks Swerd thats not exactly what I trying to relay but yes indead you are exactly right on. We surely wouldnt want a WAR every generation.

I think what I was trying to get out was the feelings of some leaders are so very far from the common civilians(or families of soldiers)

I still think we now have more tolerance than anytime in history.