I find it very interesting that anyone would get so desperate to defend positions of hate that they actually start feel the need to start calling the people who support equal human dignity "Nazis."

And these are actually Catholic websites (links provided), so I'm not just making that part up. This isn't an attempt to say that everyone in that organization does that.

http://www.catholicanada.com/tag/tolerance-nazis/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2012/08/in-defense-of-tolerance-nazi-adam-smith.html

Everything about his smug manner and feeling of “purposefulness” is typical of the Tolerance Nazi.

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2012/02/tolerance-nazis-threaten-little-girl.html

Read what she wrote and then read some of the vile and threatening things written to her or about her by the tolerance Nazis.

In both situations, the bigots are just mounting a smear campaign.

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1828

The Dutch tolerance Nazis strike again. And again. And again.

What's really obvious from this is that these people who are calling supporters of equality "tolerance Nazis" is that they are quite clearly against tolerance.

This is a good thing.
It means people can call them intolerance Nazi's.

 purplefood wrote:
This is a good thing.
It means people can call them intolerance Nazi's.

Yes. They are intolerance Nazi's.

As Nigel Powers said, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."

So tolerance as an ideology is beyond questioning? That's an interesting opinion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As Nigel Powers said, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."

"There are two things I can't stand in this world. People's intolerance of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
Great quote

It's odd to call people 'tolerance nazis', it seems they have an issue with the idea of tolerance, that they want to defend the right to be intolerant as though that's a good thing.

That's a bit like defending your right to be racist. I mean people who are very intolerant or racist usually don't think they are being intolerant, they are blind to it and think they are being normal and sensible, regardless of the mental backflips required to do so from a more objective point of view. They don't think to themselves 'I'm an unfair, bigoted and prejudiced person and will fight hard to remain that way'. Yet these people seem to have done just that, they attack the idea of being tolerant towards others.

Oh, Inquisitor Ehrenstein, you and your Nazis. :p


But yeah, this is silly. Sigh. Humans these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, some of the adverts on that website were hilarious. Christian Samurai? Really?

Freedom of speech is a pain in the ass sometimes. Fortunately it also provides irony! And irony is hilarious

It's not even something which kinda makes you regret Freedom of speech. It's just silly.

I think we need to get 4chan to hack the site and change the adverts to pictures advertising worship of the Ruinous Powers. Where once there was "Your guide to mass" there will be a Dark Apostle clutching the severed head of the pope with the title "DESTROY THE WEAK! Join the legions of Chaos today!"

So this thread exists because OP is mad that somebody got compared to Nazis again?

We need thread nazis...

A google search for 'Tolerance Nazis'

Brings us this:

Gay Nazis for tolerance and understanding | Facebook
en-gb.facebook.com/...Nazis-for-tolerance.../1797082487371...ShareGay Nazis for tolerance and understanding | Facebook.

This Dakka thread is no4 on the list

 LordofHats wrote:
Freedom of speech is a pain in the ass sometimes. Fortunately it also provides irony! And irony is hilarious

They probably aren't smart enough to understand the irony of calling people tolerance Nazis.

 d-usa wrote:
So this thread exists because OP is mad that somebody got compared to Nazis again?

We need thread nazis...

From what I can surmise the OP is mad that a two bloggers pointed out that harassing a low wage worker in a drive through and calling for the extermination of a 14 year olds parent and hoping that she is bullied.
In his mind thier actions in the name of gay marriage, accurately quoted, are a bigoted smear campaign against the tolerance of other peoples beliefs.

I think that's called ironic.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

They probably aren't smart enough to understand the irony of calling people tolerance Nazis.

Everyone is tolerant of some things and intolerant of others. The extrimity is what invokes the notion of "nazi".

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So this thread exists because OP is mad that somebody got compared to Nazis again?

We need thread nazis...

From what I can surmise the OP is mad that a two bloggers pointed out that harassing a low wage worker in a drive through and calling for the extermination of a 14 year olds parent and hoping that she is bullied.
In his mind thier actions in the name of gay marriage, accurately quoted, are a bigoted smear campaign against the tolerance of other peoples beliefs.

I think that's called ironic.

The guy in that video was far from harassing.

In the second example, they did go off, but that girl was full of bigotry.

I find it very interesting that anyone would get so desperate to defend positions of hate that they actually start feel the need to start calling the people who support equal human dignity "Nazis."

Just his history with the word Nazi makes me think he is more angry at people using that than he is about them defending bigotry.

 purplefood wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As Nigel Powers said, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."

"There are two things I can't stand in this world. People's intolerance of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
Great quote

Well really who likes the Dutch any way? With their dykes and their tulip bulbs and their wooden shoes

This story is focused on people who are entirely up their own donkey cave and are probably the same lot of nutters who think there's a war on christmas... in a overwhelmingly christian country.

 purplefood wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As Nigel Powers said, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."

"There are two things I can't stand in this world. People's intolerance of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
Great quote

Hey! What did we ever do to you? I mean, except sack London a few centuries back. Can't you just let bygones be bygones?
I mean, why can't we all just be friends?

I'd hardly call it sacking London...
If anything burning London has only been proved to help in improving the place...

 d-usa wrote:

I find it very interesting that anyone would get so desperate to defend positions of hate that they actually start feel the need to start calling the people who support equal human dignity "Nazis."

Just his history with the word Nazi makes me think he is more angry at people using that than he is about them defending bigotry.

No, it's because bigotry is idiotic and oppresses people.

Reported for trolling.

Are you a troll nazi now?

If you honestly think that post was trolling, then you should evaluate your post history and see how many nazi threads you have started. I think there was even a post in nuts & bolts about this subject...

I thought the term was neo nazi or nazi sympathiser.
OP searches nazis to often, makes me which I didn't have such close name to him. Ahwell

Advocacy of violence against real people is not a kind of post we allow. -Mannahnin

 d-usa wrote:
Are you a troll nazi now?

If you honestly think that post was trolling, then you should evaluate your post history and see how many nazi threads you have started. I think there was even a post in nuts & bolts about this subject...

He has also ignored both of my posts about the ideology of tolerance. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So this thread exists because OP is mad that somebody got compared to Nazis again?

We need thread nazis...

From what I can surmise the OP is mad that a two bloggers pointed out that harassing a low wage worker in a drive through and calling for the extermination of a 14 year olds parent and hoping that she is bullied.
In his mind thier actions in the name of gay marriage, accurately quoted, are a bigoted smear campaign against the tolerance of other peoples beliefs.

I think that's called ironic.

The guy in that video was far from harassing.

In the second example, they did go off, but that girl was full of bigotry.

Yeah it was so far from harassing he lost his job.

The girl has an opinion, and because it differs from yours she's a bigot? I feel like there's a set of words to describe that:intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw what IS your handle on Stormfront?

The Female Olympic Dutch Field Hockey Team are Nazi's?.....LIES!!!!!!

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Advocacy of violence toward real people is not permitted. -Mannahnin.

Ok, I'll assume you're not being sarcastic.

A 14 year old girl doesn't believe marriage should be redefined... Thats it. No calls for violence against homosexuals or their supporters in the gay marriage debate. Just putting forth her opinion on the issue.

And thats your "frank" response to it. Not statistics about how healthy gay marriages and thier children are on average, (according to some studies) how homosexuals have contributed to society, etc. Instead you just flat out call for perverted violence against a 14 year old girl and her parents, the "freaks".

Even if you, and the internet trolls reported in the link were being sarcastic(which I doubt) the fact that no one from the gay marriage supporters comes out and condemns such talk kind of proves the point about the whole "intolerance nazi" thing that these bloggers are talking about.

Her opinions are dangerously outmoded and outdated. She has likely been brainwashed by her crazy parents and clergy. People like her are stopping thousands of people from recieving the same basic rights as everyone else.

She should feel deeply ashamed of herself. What a pitiful excuse for humanity.

Dutch tolerate everything

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Her opinions are dangerously outmoded and outdated. She has likely been brainwashed by her crazy parents and clergy. People like her are stopping thousands of people from recieving the same basic rights as everyone else.

She should feel deeply ashamed of herself. What a pitiful excuse for humanity.

But have her (again 14 year old girl) spine ripped out and shoved up her anus...

Perfectly reasonable response. Bravo sir, bravo.

Let's tone it down a bit, shall we? -Mannahnin

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Her opinions are dangerously outmoded and outdated. She has likely been brainwashed by her crazy parents and clergy. People like her are stopping thousands of people from recieving the same basic rights as everyone else.

She should feel deeply ashamed of herself. What a pitiful excuse for humanity.

Squiggy...

That's a bit much...

There's a study I saw recently that the majority of Americans at 51% believe gays should be able to Marry... we're getting there.

That response will likely force those who oppose it to double-down because you're attacking them personally.

For the record, I'm for marriages for gays. I just wouldn't advocate guys to marry unless they have kidz .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

There you go again. That's intolerance there too...

 whembly wrote:
There you go again. That's intolerance there too...

Hey, if he wants to murder a 14 year old girl in some fashion that highlights an anal fixation, who are you to call him intolerant?

Stop being intolerant.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

So they have the moral imperative to retaliate. Which means you've just justified the bombings of gay clubs, bravo.

For the record, some of the most decent people I know are homophobes/racist.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Her opinions are dangerously outmoded and outdated. She has likely been brainwashed by her crazy parents and clergy. People like her are stopping thousands of people from recieving the same basic rights as everyone else.

She should feel deeply ashamed of herself. What a pitiful excuse for humanity.

don't civil partnerships have the same legal ramifications as a marriage??

They're a half arsed excuse to help protect the ignorant festering religious masses and their stupid doctrine. Also many of the advantages of marriage (survival benefits etc) are not covered by civil unions.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

So the government should perform executions on people you disagree with, I don't see anything going wrong with this. But then again you're 13 so maybe I should be excusing you for some of your naivety.

I think we can all agree that we strongly deprecate troll trolling, intolerance of tolerance, and nasty nazis.

Therefore there is no point continuing the thread.

Oh come on! I hadn't even posted in it yet !!!

On topic, the thread title is stupid, and you'd have to explain to me why we can't be critical of tolerance, even in preference of alterity.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

So the government should perform executions on people you disagree with, I don't see anything going wrong with this. But then again you're 13 so maybe I should be excusing you for some of your naivety.

I wish I was still 13...

I'm 16. And incredibly violent.

I mean, why should it surprise anyone that those that subscribe to an absolutist version of morality doesn't believe that relativist morals are valid?

And fact is, as someone who spends a crapload of time in the philosophy department of his University, there are such a thing as relativist Nazis, which is what I suspect they are talking about with the tolerance nazis. Of course I don't agree with what they direct the critic at...

Of course, half of this thread is about the fact that OP failed to realize that people use the term Nazi in a different context here, so...

Tolerance is not a virtue in itself.

We should really stop calling people Nazis and just talk about what we are really thinking. Calling someone a Nazi really poor way to get your point across in that it never gets your point across. You know unless we are talking about actual nazis, then we can call them what they are.

nomotog wrote:
We should really stop calling people Nazis and just talk about what we are really thinking. Calling someone a Nazi really poor way to get your point across in that it never gets your point across. You know unless we are talking about actual nazis, then we can call them what they are.

Plus it trivializes the events of WWII.

nomotog wrote:
We should really stop calling people Nazis and just talk about what we are really thinking. Calling someone a Nazi really poor way to get your point across in that it never gets your point across. You know unless we are talking about actual nazis, then we can call them what they are.

It's a negative term that convey well the meaning of being ridiculously authoritative about things that are personnal. It fills the role it's supposed to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

nomotog wrote:
We should really stop calling people Nazis and just talk about what we are really thinking. Calling someone a Nazi really poor way to get your point across in that it never gets your point across. You know unless we are talking about actual nazis, then we can call them what they are.

Plus it trivializes the events of WWII.

I don't see people complaining that the use of the term 'laconic' trivializes the battle of Thermopyles...

So just to be clear, you are in favor of people calling each other Nazi?

Advocating violence against real people is not allowed on Dakka.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

So the government should perform executions on people you disagree with, I don't see anything going wrong with this. But then again you're 13 so maybe I should be excusing you for some of your naivety.

I wish I was still 13...

I'm 16. And incredibly violent.

*edited because the previous image was offensive, apparently.*

Of course you are.

Not to each other's faces, it's important to remain polite, but it's a term that conveys appropriatly the meaning it's supposed to.

When I jokingly call my collegue a fem-nazi, or a grammar-nazi, they 100% know that I refer to their propension to jump on everything that seems anti-feminist or incorrect grammatically, not that they are fascists...

Also, I'd avoid it in political debates...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Advocating violence against real people is not allowed on Dakka.

Have I stepped over a line I haven't seen?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


I don't see people complaining that the use of the term 'laconic' trivializes the battle of Thermopyles...

Except no one uses or even knows what the term "laconic" means unlike the word "Nazi".

I would like to see a relativistic Nazi.

Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Mannahnin, it was an exaggeration but in all seriousness I'm not familiar with the word and I would imagine a lot of English speaking people aren't either was the point I was trying to make.

I'm 16. And incredibly violent.

Choked on my carrot cake on this. Your perception of violence is centered around you. Incredible violence that involves two grps of people who are trying to kill each other by whatever means possible is not violent. Its the determination to kill the bad guy with whatever capability you have at your finger tips. Whats violence is how you manage to opt the bad guy out. Either a small arms fire, antitank round, A10 strike, arty strike etc etc.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Both describe an attitude that is abstracted from how we represent a group of people. Both of those groups are famous for killing a crapton of people. People sensitivities hit the wall upon hearing Nazis because 'it trivialize the horror they committed', but when you use 'laconic', people appreciate the extent of your vocabulary without caring about the horrors committed in Laconia.

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Not to each other's faces, it's important to remain polite, but it's a term that conveys appropriatly the meaning it's supposed to.

When I jokingly call my collegue a fem-nazi, or a grammar-nazi, they 100% know that I refer to their propension to jump on everything that seems anti-feminist or incorrect grammatically, not that they are fascists...

Also, I'd avoid it in political debates...

I can support that. Still would rather explain my thinking.

Isn't it funny that the one place we shouldn't talk about Nazis is in politics. It would be like in 20 years no one can use the word republican in a debate.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


I don't see people complaining that the use of the term 'laconic' trivializes the battle of Thermopyles...

Except no one uses or even knows what the term "laconic" means unlike the word "Nazi".

Actually can someone explain what laconic means and how it relates to Thermopyles?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Mannahnin, it was an exaggeration but in all seriousness I'm not familiar with the word and I would imagine a lot of English speaking people aren't either was the point I was trying to make.

The internet was invented to allow people who are not familiar with words to look them up quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laconic

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Both describe an attitude that is abstracted from how we represent a group of people. Both of those groups are famous for killing a crapton of people. People sensitivities hit the wall upon hearing Nazis because 'it trivialize the horror they committed', but when you use 'laconic', people appreciate the extent of your vocabulary without caring about the horrors committed in Laconia.

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

I hope your aware of how funny that statement is.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would like to see a relativistic Nazi.

Nazism and Communism both subscribed to moral relativism. Just not the tolerant kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Both describe an attitude that is abstracted from how we represent a group of people. Both of those groups are famous for killing a crapton of people. People sensitivities hit the wall upon hearing Nazis because 'it trivialize the horror they committed', but when you use 'laconic', people appreciate the extent of your vocabulary without caring about the horrors committed in Laconia.

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

I hope your aware of how funny that statement is.

No, please explicitate the nature of your hilarity.

I mean I would like to see a Nazi accelerated to nearly the speed of light.

It probably would be a good fireworks display.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I mean I would like to see a Nazi accelerated to nearly the speed of light.

It probably would be a good fireworks display.

It'd be messy.

I'm strangely comfortable with it.

Relativistic Nazi.
Made almost twice as good as whose theory it is.

Laconic refers to a particular quality the Lakonians were purported to possess, as opposed to Nazi, which refers to the group as a whole and encompasses everything about them.

"Spartan" might have been a better comparison, as it's both an adjective and a noun referring to the whole group.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Laconic refers to a particular quality the Lakonians were purported to possess, as opposed to Nazi, which refers to the group as a whole and encompasses everything about them.

"Spartan" might have been a better comparison, as it's both an adjective and a noun referring to the whole group.

I'd say that 'Nazi' only refers to their political and social beleifs, but hey, I think you've made a good job at showing that the differences between the terms are minor and do not make in an invalid comparison.

At a point in time, Laconic would've refered to everything 'Laconian' and was later on abstracted to their manner of speech.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

Actually it does because words and language change meanings over time.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would like to see a relativistic Nazi.

Nazism and Communism both subscribed to moral relativism. Just not the tolerant kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Both describe an attitude that is abstracted from how we represent a group of people. Both of those groups are famous for killing a crapton of people. People sensitivities hit the wall upon hearing Nazis because 'it trivialize the horror they committed', but when you use 'laconic', people appreciate the extent of your vocabulary without caring about the horrors committed in Laconia.

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

I hope your aware of how funny that statement is.

No, please explicitate the nature of your hilarity.

I don't know if I can. It's like your saying the only difference is time, but in time that won't mean anything. Well ya because the difference is time and in time the time will be the same. It's like your saying the difference is stripes, but after I paint it it won't matter. Then all of that is in response to someone who didn't like stripes.

... It's funny over here, that's I can be sure of.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

Actually it does because words and language change meanings over time.

That's the whole point of what I'm saying ; the use of the term 'Nazi' has changed... (or, more accurately, both use are acceptable)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

I don't know if I can. It's like your saying the only difference is time, but in time that won't mean anything. Well ya because the difference is time and in time the time will be the same. It's like your saying the difference is stripes, but after I paint it it won't matter. Then all of that is in response to someone who didn't like stripes.

... It's funny over here, that's I can be sure of.

Well, the time thing refered to the horrors committed...

I do agree with you on that; although one should be careful about the context in which you use the term. As you said.

The meaning of a word can change depending on the context in which it is used.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Mannahnin, it was an exaggeration but in all seriousness I'm not familiar with the word and I would imagine a lot of English speaking people aren't either was the point I was trying to make.

The internet was invented to allow people who are not familiar with words to look them up quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laconic

Thanks kilkrazy, had never heard of that word before this thread,

In addition to nazis how about rape being downplayed/de-valued though "Fraping" on facebook??

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

Actually it does because words and language change meanings over time.

That's the whole point of what I'm saying ; the use of the term 'Nazi' has changed... (or, more accurately, both use are acceptable)

Alright I suppose you're right, but still calling people Nazis (unless they actually are Nazis) just because you disagree with them is a bad argument and an oversimplification (I've already mentioned that it trivializes WWII as well). Although Feminazis and Grammar-Nazis work because these

groups are strict and militant about there values (like Nazis) but no one actually thinks they're Nazis or are morally equal with Nazis, whereas with Godwin's Law some people actually feel that republicans or democrats are on par with Nazism in terms of moral standing for example (which is

obviously untrue).

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

In addition to nazis how about rape being downplayed/de-valued though "Fraping" on facebook??

It's on Facebook, therefore it's silly.

I was Fraping before Fraping was cool.
Lock your fething workstation.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Alright I suppose you're right, but still calling people Nazis (unless they actually are Nazis) just because you disagree with them is a bad argument and an oversimplification (I've already mentioned that it trivializes WWII as well).

Ad hominem are always bad. Calling a feminist making absolutely ridiculous claims (they are not a myth, let me assure you of that, my Dept offers a Master in Feminists Studies) a fem-nazi isn't meant to deride them by actually comparing them to Nazis. It's just a tool of language to express your disagreement.

some people actually feel that republicans or democrats are on par with Nazism in terms of moral standing for example (which is obviously untrue).

That's a case of ad hominem. I've said it many times, learning your sophisms is the surest way to never enjoy another political debate ever again. You realize even your side is full of cretin.

Yeah I agree Kovnik, but honestly who knew we could actually have a somewhat sensible debate on words and context out of a thread where a poster was advocating the slaughter of people he/she disagreed with.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah I agree Kovnik, but honestly who knew we could actually have a somewhat sensible debate on words and context out of a thread where a poster was advocating the slaughter of people he/she disagreed with.

Someone was advocating for violence?

Someone who isn't a teen, or a Nazi hunter wannabe?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's a case of ad hominem.

No it isn't. An ad hominem is ONLY an argument of the form "you're an X therefore Y", where X is something unrelated to the discussion. So, for example:

"You're a *******" is just an insult, not an ad hominem, since no argument is being made.

"This is why you're wrong. And PS: you're a ************" is just an insult, not an ad hominem, since the personal attack has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.

"Stop being a nazi about X" is also just an insult. It's an exaggerated one (unless X is something really horrible), but that doesn't change the substance of "you are behaving badly about this".

"Policy X is just like the nazis" is probably a bad argument (since most things aren't really that evil), but not really an ad hominem since it's logically correct to compare the policies of two different groups even though

"You're a nazi, therefore you have no credibility about X ethical subject" is probably not an ad hominem, since most people would agree that being a nazi implies seriously flawed ability to make moral judgements.

"You're a nazi, therefore you're wrong that 1+1=2" is an ad hominem, since whether or not the person is a nazi has nothing to do with whether they're right about math.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ad hominem are always bad.

Not always, just most of the time. If a thief is defending thieves, then it makes sense to point out that he is a thief and that he has an interest in defending thieves which extends beyond argumentation.

 dogma wrote:
Not always, just most of the time. If a thief is defending thieves, then it makes sense to point out that he is a thief and that he has an interest in defending thieves which extends beyond argumentation.

Of course that isn't an ad hominem at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's a case of ad hominem.

No it isn't. An ad hominem is ONLY an argument of the form "you're an X therefore Y", where X is something unrelated to the discussion. So, for example:

"You're a *******" is just an insult, not an ad hominem, since no argument is being made.

"This is why you're wrong. And PS: you're a ************" is just an insult, not an ad hominem, since the personal attack has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.

"Stop being a nazi about X" is also just an insult. It's an exaggerated one (unless X is something really horrible), but that doesn't change the substance of "you are behaving badly about this".

"Policy X is just like the nazis" is probably a bad argument (since most things aren't really that evil), but not really an ad hominem since it's logically correct to compare the policies of two different groups even though

"You're a nazi, therefore you have no credibility about X ethical subject" is probably not an ad hominem, since most people would agree that being a nazi implies seriously flawed ability to make moral judgements.

"You're a nazi, therefore you're wrong that 1+1=2" is an ad hominem, since whether or not the person is a nazi has nothing to do with whether they're right about math.

Pragmatically, an insult is often an ad hominem. A conversation is not limited to the inferences that can be made directly from the spoken language. If you insult someone in a political arena, safe to say that others can deduce your disagreement with them from the conversation's history.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pragmatically, an insult is often an ad hominem. A conversation is not limited to the inferences that can be made directly from the spoken language. If you insult someone in a political arena, safe to say that others can deduce your disagreement with them from the conversation's history.

Expressing disagreement is not the same thing as an argument (in the logical sense). "I hate you, you're wrong" is just an insult. It might have a desired effect of hurting your target's reputation, but it isn't the kind of argument where fallacies are relevant at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's a case of ad hominem.

No it isn't. An ad hominem is ONLY an argument of the form "you're an X therefore Y", where X is something unrelated to the discussion. So, for example.

And that's wrong, the mark of an ad hominem is to oppose the speaker with his own words. It doesn't have a necessary structure.

So it'd be an ad personam, in that case.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And that's wrong, the mark of an ad hominem is to oppose the speaker with his own words. It doesn't have a necessary structure.

I'm not talking about the exact words, I mean the logical structure of the argument. It's only an ad hominem if you say that something is true BECAUSE a person is X. Simply saying a person is X is just verbal abuse.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pragmatically, an insult is often an ad hominem. A conversation is not limited to the inferences that can be made directly from the spoken language. If you insult someone in a political arena, safe to say that others can deduce your disagreement with them from the conversation's history.

Expressing disagreement is not the same thing as an argument (in the logical sense). "I hate you, you're wrong" is just an insult. It might have a desired effect of hurting your target's reputation, but it isn't the kind of argument where fallacies are relevant at all.

Not necessarily, imagine the conversation :

a- I'm for Gay Marriage
b- I'm against Gay Marriage
a- You are a Nazi.

Pragmatically, if you realize that 'Nazi' is an insult, you realize that A disagrees with B. If you know the signification of 'Nazi', you might deduce that A thinks that B is violently intolerent. A person aware of all that and following the conversation can deduce that A is making the argument that ''B is a Nazi because he is violently intolerant to Gay marriage''.

Which would make it an ad personam.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pragmatically, an insult is often an ad hominem. A conversation is not limited to the inferences that can be made directly from the spoken language. If you insult someone in a political arena, safe to say that others can deduce your disagreement with them from the conversation's history.

Expressing disagreement is not the same thing as an argument (in the logical sense). "I hate you, you're wrong" is just an insult. It might have a desired effect of hurting your target's reputation, but it isn't the kind of argument where fallacies are relevant at all.

Not necessarily, imagine the conversation :

a- I'm for Gay Marriage
b- I'm against Gay Marriage
a- You are a Nazi.

Pragmatically, if you realize that 'Nazi' is an insult, you realize that A disagrees with B. If you know the signification of 'Nazi', you might deduce that A thinks that B is violently intolerent. A person aware of all that and following the conversation can deduce that A is making the argument that ''B is a Nazi because he is violently intolerant to Gay marriage''.

Which would make it an ad personam.

Isn't ad personam the same as ad hominem? Because ad hominen is supposed to be an attack on a person's character that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Isn't ad personam the same as ad hominem? Because ad hominen is supposed to be an attack on a person's character that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

I almost always hear it used as the same, but the Larousse dictionnary gives a specific definition for ad hominem, which is basically expliciting a contradiction in your opponent's arguments.

Ad personam is defined as an attack on the subject holding the conversation.

I know a crapload of teachers using the terms incorrectly.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Isn't ad personam the same as ad hominem? Because ad hominen is supposed to be an attack on a person's character that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

which is basically expliciting a contradiction in your opponent's arguments.

To me that definition seems so vague that it could fall under other types of fallacies.

 dogma wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ad hominem are always bad.

Not always, just most of the time. If a thief is defending thieves, then it makes sense to point out that he is a thief and that he has an interest in defending thieves which extends beyond argumentation.

Just gonna say, it has been a long time since I've seen you post something, and I'm quite happy you're still with us!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Isn't ad personam the same as ad hominem? Because ad hominen is supposed to be an attack on a person's character that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

which is basically expliciting a contradiction in your opponent's arguments.

To me that definition seems so vague that it could fall under other types of fallacies.

Something could be an ad hominem and an ad verecundium (authority), yes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Not always, just most of the time. If a thief is defending thieves, then it makes sense to point out that he is a thief and that he has an interest in defending thieves which extends beyond argumentation.

Of course that isn't an ad hominem at all.

Yes it is.

In a general sense ad hominem occurs whenever one attacks the character of an interlocutor. This is usually fallacious, but not always. To carry on my example, it would not be fallacious to remark on the fact that a person defending thieves happened to be a thief. However, it would be fallacious to make note of the fact that he also happened to be a eunuch.

You are correct that relevance to the topic is important to the validity of an ad hominem attack, but whether or not something is ad hominem is not so impacted.

This is a decent overview.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Just gonna say, it has been a long time since I've seen you post something, and I'm quite happy you're still with us!

Glad to be here.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Thats a $5.00 word.. I try to limit myself to half dollar words.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Thats a $5.00 word.. I try to limit myself to half dollar words.

Never use a word with more than two syllab...

Never use a word with more than two mouth movements.

Out of curiosity, why is it most of your off-topic threads have something to do with Nazis or Germany?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why is it most of your off-topic threads have something to do with Nazis or Germany?

Ooh I can answer that.
Germans - river beer cruises. BEEER!
Nazis- got started in a beer hall.

Texas is basically almost German, except for the Mexican parts...

 d-usa wrote:
Texas is basically almost German, except for the Mexican parts...

Theres a ton of Dutch and Scottish too, which reminds me of Kolaches, mmmm Kolaches.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Oh come on! I hadn't even posted in it yet !!!

On topic, the thread title is stupid, and you'd have to explain to me why we can't be critical of tolerance, even in preference of alterity.

There literally hasn't been a single thing said on this. I posted yesterday and was looking forward to the replies, but it seems like the is no rational backing towards tolerance *whatsoever*. That's a shame.

Squigsquasher wrote:
I wish I was still 13...

I'm 16. And incredibly violent.

How many fights have you gotten in in the past year?

Eh, the thing that most people don't seem to grasp about tolerance is that it's a two way street. Yes Catholics should tolerate gay people and people's opinions on gay people, but likewise non-catholics should tolerate Catholocism's attitude and opinions towards the matter.

When most people think tolerance they really mean political correctness.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Eh, the thing that most people don't seem to grasp about tolerance is that it's a two way street. Yes Catholics should tolerate gay people and people's opinions on gay people, but likewise non-catholics should tolerate Catholocism's attitude and opinions towards the matter.

When most people think tolerance they really mean political correctness.

True dat

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority & rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
-some fething genius.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Eh, the thing that most people don't seem to grasp about tolerance is that it's a two way street. Yes Catholics should tolerate gay people and people's opinions on gay people, but likewise non-catholics should tolerate Catholocism's attitude and opinions towards the matter.

When most people think tolerance they really mean political correctness.

I Tolerate their opinion and i know they have to right to express them.
But i can still think they are idiots for holding those opinions.

 AustonT wrote:
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority & rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
-some fething genius.

I bet you can't say that five times in a row...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Eh, the thing that most people don't seem to grasp about tolerance is that it's a two way street. Yes Catholics should tolerate gay people and people's opinions on gay people, but likewise non-catholics should tolerate Catholocism's attitude and opinions towards the matter.

When most people think tolerance they really mean political correctness.

I Tolerate their opinion and i know they have to right to express them.
But i can still think they are idiots for holding those opinions.

Thats not very tolerant.

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like it. It just means you have to accept it exists.
Remember, You Tolerate a crying baby, you Tolerate a bad cold, but you dont have to like them.

 AustonT wrote:
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority & rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
-some fething genius.

And here I thought the idea of political correctness was to minimize offending people, but apparently a lot of people seem to have problems with that on the internet I guess we should go back to a time when white people would regularly call black people , words don't hurt people

after all.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority & rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
-some fething genius.

And here I thought the idea of political correctness was to minimize offending people.

Only favored groups. No one cares about offending Nazis, or Paris Hilton.

That's because those things are not people.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority & rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
-some fething genius.

And here I thought the idea of political correctness was to minimize offending people.

Only favored groups. No one cares about offending Nazis, or Paris Hilton.

Oh I'm not saying people should be politically correct all the time, but you should at least consider using it when communicating.

I think people should be considerate when communicating but an idea of political correctness is slightly odd in some cases...

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like it. It just means you have to accept it exists.
Remember, You Tolerate a crying baby, you Tolerate a bad cold, but you dont have to like them.

But likewise you don't yell at a crying baby or cut it's throat or tell its mother that she should abort the darn thing because it's crying.

Yes, it's entirely possible to be tolerant of something and not like it. The difference comes when you start pushing your views on others in an aggressive manner. Operative word being aggressive.

Political correctness is a form of linguistic fascism with the additional gross irony of purporting to be the vehicle of progressive reform but is in fact an Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself.
-Dora the Explora.

Um, I dont think that we should hurt people who have different beliefs as mine. Where did you get that?

 AustonT wrote:
Political correctness is a form of linguistic fascism with the additional gross irony of purporting to be the vehicle of progressive reform but is in fact an Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself.
-Dora the Explora.

You're good. You're real good.

 AustonT wrote:
Political correctness is a form of linguistic fascism with the additional gross irony of purporting to be the vehicle of progressive reform but is in fact an Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself.
-Dora the Explora.

Putting big words in your description doesn't mean you actually know what political correctness is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:
I think people should be considerate when communicating but an idea of political correctness is slightly odd in some cases...

I agree.

Um, I dont think that we should hurt people who have different beliefs as mine. Where did you get that?

I was likely reading some anti religion aggression into it that in all likelihood wasn't there.

Political correctness is tyranny with a happy face
-Big Bird

Small enough words for you?

 AustonT wrote:
Political correctness is tyranny with a happy face
-Big Bird

Small enough words for you?

Where can I learn more from this large avian? It seems a wise creature.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Political correctness is tyranny with a happy face
-Big Bird

Small enough words for you?

Where can I learn more from this large avian? It seems a wise creature.

Unfortunately he caught a flu and had to be put down.

Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!

Am I edgy and cool now?!

How long will it take before the word means nothing, and history's lessons are forgotten?

Do we really want to associate men like this with things that mean nothing?

I find your lack of tolerance intolerable.

Wheres the Downfall parody when its most needed?

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!

Am I edgy and cool now?!

How long will it take before the word means nothing, and history's lessons are forgotten?

Do we really want to associate men like this with things that mean nothing?

But it means something, my friends aren't left to wonder why I associated them with facists when I call them grammar nazis or just nazis as a joke. They understand the meaning behind the words almost to a fault, humans are naturally gifted for that. Irony and sarcasm are important social tools, and I will not be denied words for no good reason, damnit!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!

Am I edgy and cool now?!

How long will it take before the word means nothing, and history's lessons are forgotten?

Do we really want to associate men like this with things that mean nothing?

But it means something, my friends aren't left to wonder why I associated them with facists when I call them grammar nazis or just nazis as a joke. They understand the meaning behind the words almost to a fault, humans are naturally gifted for that. Irony and sarcasm are important social tools, and I will not be denied words for no good reason, damnit!

This, it only starts to become bad when people misuse the word Nazis to describe others and sincerely believe they're using it correctly.

The phrase "political correctness" was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The politically correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence. -Julius Ceasar

Political correctness, generally speaking is a pejorative term for a doctrine or policy of being considerate toward the feelings of others, especially minority groups. It is a term that has come in for a bit of deserved lampooning, when oversensitive people and groups (such as colleges or city councils) have come up with seemingly silly and/or heavy-handed policies, or clumsy terms, that overcompensate and create new problems. But mostly it’s a term used in the culture wars to deride liberalism, by people who would like to go on using rude terms for women and minorities without consequence.

Careful observation and considered judgment can allow the interested observer to determine when a given instance of “political correctness” is being derided because it is silly, or because the person deriding it is defending bigotry.

 AustonT wrote:
Political correctness is tyranny with a happy face
-Big Bird

Small enough words for you?

You're still just spouting inane dribble, all you've done is listed a bunch of adjectives and your opinion without getting to the root of why you dislike political correctness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:

The phrase "political correctness" was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The politically correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence. -Julius Ceasar

Political correctness, generally speaking is a pejorative term for a doctrine or policy of being considerate toward the feelings of others, especially minority groups. It is a term that has come in for a bit of deserved lampooning, when oversensitive people and groups (such as colleges or city councils) have come up with seemingly silly and/or heavy-handed policies, or clumsy terms, that overcompensate and create new problems. But mostly it’s a term used in the culture wars to deride liberalism, by people who would like to go on using rude terms for women and minorities without consequence.

Careful observation and considered judgment can allow the interested observer to determine when a given instance of “political correctness” is being derided because it is silly, or because the person deriding it is defending bigotry.

Fantastic post, Mannahnin.

The stuff he's posted is perfectly clear, IMO. It's described in more detail in the wiki article I linked to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_correct#Current_usage

Edit: Thanks.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The stuff he's posted is perfectly clear, IMO. It's described in more detail in the wiki article I linked to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_correct#Current_usage

Edit: Thanks.

Yeah, I think I get the gist of what he is saying now (after re-reading what AutsonT wrote) basically that political correctness is too controlling over one's speech which is true if taken to an extreme. But then there's the other extreme where one says offensive things without any regard towards

his/her audience which I don't know if he's/she's seriously considered this, this isn't a subject where you can take one side and be completely correct if anything a more middle in the road approach is more appropriate.

I am absolutely opposed to political correctness. You cannot confront hate speech until you've experienced it. You need to hear every side of the issue instead of just one.
Foghorn Leghorn

Careful observation and considered judgment can allow the interested observer to determine when a given instance of “political correctness” is being derided because it is silly, or because the person deriding it is defending bigotry.

The thing is that you should be allowed to defend bigotry when that bigotry is a private matter, or was done in a way that was relatively harmless. I mean, it's one thing to get for telling racist jokes on a street corner for everyone to hear, it's a completely different thing if you're simply walking down said street and are having a private conversation with your friends and tell a racist joke. One is (arguably) in need of some political correctness, the other is not.

I know of cases where it's not even the group that the joke was targeted at got offended and reported the person, it's someone else being offended on their behalf. That's really the one that I dislike. Where someone essentially tattle tales on someone for saying something that "A" they were eavesdropping on in the first place, "B" didn't even have anything to do with that persons group, and "C" the targeted group wouldn't even have found offending to the point of reporting it to a higher authority.

 AustonT wrote:
I am absolutely opposed to political correctness. You cannot confront hate speech until you've experienced it. You need to hear every side of the issue instead of just one.
Foghorn Leghorn

Isn't that why political correctness was created in the first place?

 Mannahnin wrote:

The phrase "political correctness" was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The politically correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence. -Julius Ceasar

Political correctness, generally speaking is a pejorative term for a doctrine or policy of being considerate toward the feelings of others, especially minority groups. It is a term that has come in for a bit of deserved lampooning, when oversensitive people and groups (such as colleges or city councils) have come up with seemingly silly and/or heavy-handed policies, or clumsy terms, that overcompensate and create new problems. But mostly it’s a term used in the culture wars to deride liberalism, by people who would like to go on using rude terms for women and minorities without consequence.

Careful observation and considered judgment can allow the interested observer to determine when a given instance of “political correctness” is being derided because it is silly, or because the person deriding it is defending bigotry.

Excellent Ragnar.

Being nice is one thing... but, going out of your way so that you don't hurt feelings is often counter-productive.

Me personally... I wear hearing aids in both ears... I'm fething deaf! Not "hard of hearing" or "hearing impared".

K... off the soapbox.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I am absolutely opposed to political correctness. You cannot confront hate speech until you've experienced it. You need to hear every side of the issue instead of just one.
Foghorn Leghorn

Isn't that why political correctness was created in the first place?

Political correctness was created so you could experience hate speech?
I'm not sure that's what you meant and if it is I dont follow.

 purplefood wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As Nigel Powers said, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."

"There are two things I can't stand in this world. People's intolerance of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
Great quote

Always thought it was "There are two things I can't stand in this world. Racism and the Dutch."
Got a hunch I'm wrong but it gives me a weak excuse to go watch those movies again

 AustonT wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I am absolutely opposed to political correctness. You cannot confront hate speech until you've experienced it. You need to hear every side of the issue instead of just one.
Foghorn Leghorn

Isn't that why political correctness was created in the first place?

Political correctness was created so you could experience hate speech?
I'm not sure that's what you meant and if it is I dont follow.

No, I meant that political correctness is a way to confront hate speech and most likely the idea spawned from people who have experienced hate speech.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I am absolutely opposed to political correctness. You cannot confront hate speech until you've experienced it. You need to hear every side of the issue instead of just one.
Foghorn Leghorn

Isn't that why political correctness was created in the first place?

Political correctness was created so you could experience hate speech?
I'm not sure that's what you meant and if it is I dont follow.

No, I meant that political correctness is a way to confront hate speech and most likely the idea spawned from people who have experienced hate speech.

I see you have missed the point entirely.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Political correctness, generally speaking is a pejorative term for a doctrine or policy of being considerate toward the feelings of others, especially minority groups. It is a term that has come in for a bit of deserved lampooning, when oversensitive people and groups (such as colleges or city councils) have come up with seemingly silly and/or heavy-handed policies, or clumsy terms, that overcompensate and create new problems. But mostly it’s a term used in the culture wars to deride liberalism, by people who would like to go on using rude terms for women and minorities without consequence.

Careful observation and considered judgment can allow the interested observer to determine when a given instance of “political correctness” is being derided because it is silly, or because the person deriding it is defending bigotry.

Great post.

Key term in there is 'careful observation' - and its exactly what folk like AustonT refuse to consider. It is a complicated issue, and it requires people to use their brain, and their experience to draw a line between genuine consideration for a minority, and foolish, unnecessary, or politically motivated charges of intolerance. Declarations like the one from AustonT that he hates all political correctness is basically refusing to apply any careful observation.