be accepting

1. protest all you want, do not hurt people or property. 2. believe whatever you want, do not force others to comply. 3. you get offended, doesn't mean the world has to change for you. 4. science doesn't mean hiding facts and lying and silencing those that have different sources for their facts.

Should I be tolerant of those who have tried to corrupt or ruin what I personally believe in?

No, and no covid amnesty
Stand behind your decision to shut down the world economy

walk into a BLM meeting in a MAGA hat and see how tolerant people are.

It’s called double standards.

No no no, it's called, We know what you want...

https://youtu.be/5UX2afsTqFI

I noticed that decades ago. The ones who scream the loudest about tolerance are the least likely. The ones who scream the loudest about diversity are the ones who are least diverse.

Tbh yeah. This stream needs to calm the hell down.

To be honest this "stream" is infected with people who make all there decisions based on feelings. NOT FACTS

Kinda like you? ;)

Welcome to humanity.

Truth. Also note that they love peace and safe space yet are the embodiment of harassment

https://youtu.be/nI33SNkIsMw

My personal experience with this phenomenon...

Democrats and their voters are still more tolerant and accepting than Republicans and their voters tho.

After all, I’ve seen very little discriminatory legislation passed from them in two decades, if any at all.

While Republicans I can count at least one hand discriminatory legislation.

Advocating to overturn unconstitutional legislation isn’t being hateful and intolerant. It’s called being an American.

Meanwhile, Republicans curtail teachers, doctors, and lgbtq rights constantly.

Maybe you’d be less afraid if they stopped doing that.

Again...

How are lbgtq rights different than everybody else's rights?

Easy. Are people trying to repeal the right to heterosexual marriage? Are there laws against discussing cis-genders?

No?

There it is.

true lol

Gee I wonder why.

Ironically, you're right... Well, SOME of that image.

you see, the real paradox is- Who defines tolerance? And is going against the people who define tolerance, intolerance?

Tolerance isn’t the problem. The lack of it is. It isn’t really that hard to define intolerance by means of discrimination. At any point exclusion occurs, or you generalize a group of people, or even utilizing a statistic to justify a behavior, rule, or law; you’ve demonstrated intolerance. No matter what.

Nor is it really that difficult to prove recent legislation in the US as having a discriminatory agenda.

This is why I’m skeptical of your perception of irony. Yes, I know, there are radicals on the left that have been discriminatory. In colleges. Not in government. I’d argue the latter is FAR more concerning than the former. Nor are the discriminatory government policies doing anything to really curtail the college ones. Aside from banning books at the public education level, and spreading propaganda against CRT.

CRT is not the heart of the problem. Like any idea, it can be corrupted and exploited. Like capitalism, communism, liberalism, conservatism, Christianity, Islam…. You can make anyone do horrible things for any reason when they think they’re right.

People who want to it down or legislating against it, proves it’s not the threat.

The people who want it shut down or legislated out of existence are.

That's... not even what I said, but okay...

Yeah, you gave som nonsense about who defines intolerance. And defying the people who define it. As if the word itself has no meaning to you.

You can call something ironic but if you don’t know the definition of ironic or tolerance then I am extremely skeptical of your perception of it.

And you could’ve expanded on it but instead of remaining deflective. It’s almost as if agreeing with people who vote Democrat or “RINO”s will put you on some type of list for being honest for once.

Blink twice if you’re in danger, Patriot.

Actually it does. You still don't understand what I said.

You haven’t said anything.

No, I did, right underneath your comment. You just still don't understand it.

You could elaborate or troll.

I see you’re going with the low road.

I’m honestly not surprised.

See, that's just it. CERTAIN political movements ted to label anything that goes against their agenda ad discrimination. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Tolerance, or lack thereof doesn’t give Republicans allowances to pass discriminatory laws which are unconstitutional.

"Discriminatory laws"

Like what? Saying Pk-3 kids shouldn't be taught about sex or sexuality? Yeah, I don't think that counts as discriminatory.

So you don’t understand that those laws didn’t do that at all.

Cool.

Here is what they did do. Public schools already have a muzzle around teachers to prevent them from discussing religion from a personal view rather than a critical worldview. They also have a muzzle from discussing politics from a personal standpoint. Which might even be why conservative and liberal have become code words for our two parties when both parties have conservative and liberal roots, policies, etc.

The Parental Rights in Education bill, and it’s clones, actually prevented teachers from talking about their personal lives but goes a bit beyond that by preventing them from even addressing students by their preferred pronouns and vice versa.

The bit about preventing teachers from excluding parents was already illegal unless abuse was between parent and student. But of a parent was psychologically abusing their child for being trans (or even not being trans) or homosexual; the student can no longer seek solace outside their family.

The bill also gave parents a blank check to sue the public school system, with the intent that the taxpayer money will be drawn directly from the public school system itself. Essentially, the state gave the public the means to execute the public school system regardless if any wrongdoing actually occurred.

At no point in the bill does it mention sex cannot be taught to young children by public school officials.

I guess they forgot to add it.

See the bill yourself:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

Honestly I'm not surprised that you're surprised.

Did you reread my comment?

Probably not. So I'll copy/paste the gist of it here; "Who defines tolerance? And is going against the people who define tolerance, intolerance?"

Here's an example- suppose a group said that tolerance is giving people special treatment, and telling young children about things they should NOT know about. Suppose a sizable part of the population agrees, even a majority. But some say that that's not what tolerance is, that giving these special treatments and teaching these lewd things is not okay. But the majority says that they're intolerant and ridicules and shuns them. Is this tolerance?

I've also included the dictionary definition of tolerance as a reminder (the "tolerant" people in my example above haven't changed it yet ;D)

Tolerance is not advocating special treatments, that much I agree.

But tolerance is also not advocating special protections against these people.

This is where we disagree.

Being allowed to sue people for not using the right pronouns is special treatment.

People wanting to use their pronouns, asking others to, and taking medications they choose, marry whom they choose, and civil rights expanding their protections to include lgbtq people are not special treatment.

Making laws to prevent that is discrimination, and that discrimination is intolerance.

You can name any leftist talking about the right to punch white nationalists, deny people free speech, exclude anyone who is conservative, white, male, cis-gender, or heterosexual from dormitories, forums, scholarships, grants, social media and I’ll tell you that yes, that is wrong.

But it doesn’t make any discriminations against anyone else who are not conservative, white, male, cis-gender, or heterosexual right.

Yep. 👍

Both right and left wing voters are NOT being tolerant. both are guilty case closed

It never ceases to amaze me how much time BOTH left and right wingers spend being "triggered" by bs that does not concern them

BothSidesAreJustAsBad™

KKK is Dems. they have the right to march and act silly, just not hurt people. same antifa and BLM. but, they do hurt people and property, therefore they are wrong.

Antifa destroys property, the KKK destroys people. You tell me again with a straight face that those two are even remotely comparable.

civil right, were voted for by Republicans, you know. Dems were against it. and google the racist things Biden has said.

I know Biden is racist. If republicans started calling him out on the 1994 crime bill and his contributions to America’s Mass Incarceration problem I’d be right along side them, but they haven’t.

If anything the general consensus on Biden from republicans seems to be that he’s not being racist enough.

Hey, nice one, man!

Just added some context for those who might not be up to speed...

When have I ever said the Confederates were heritage? And when did I ever say I was against removing statues from places like Congress? They were [Democrat] traitors. They should be removed. The only places I think they should be allowed to stay are at battlefields (as monuments and such) and on private property, where I take a libertarian stance on the issue.

Also, that argument can be reversed. Because it almost seems to me that the Democrats are anxious to remove the statues because they don't want to deal with their history. Their REAL history.

You know an effective way to help more people learn about that history is to allow the teaching of critical race theory in schools.

Yeah, teach falsehoods to teach history... suuuuuuure... LMFAO

You don’t want all the systemic injustices that the Democratic Party put into motion taught in schools?

Your loss I guess.

Yeah, nice try. But that's not what CRT is.