Shoothouse Barbie has a nice (and growing) piece worth reading.
A good quote:
The word “tolerate” has been hijacked and misused for so very long that few people are really using it appropriately any more. Suffice to say that “toleration != approval”.
She’s quite right. When you live in a state with 24,000,000 people, a country with over 300,000,000, a world with over 6,000,000,000, or just in your own household with maybe 3-5 people, people are going to do things you do not approve of. No one says you have to approve of it, but we do have to tolerate it. Rather, we do have to tolerate it if we wish to call ourselves a free society. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to support it, but you have to tolerate it… else someday someone’s going to not tolerate things you like and do. Treat others as you want to be treated, and all that good stuff.
Stuff From Hsoi 
This reminds me of this video thats a very handy primer on the basic elements of critical thinking:
One hopes that these concepts should be ingrained in our kids well before they graduate from public high school, but apparently this is not universally the case. people make all kinds of kneejerk accusations and inane assertions without providing valid evidence and then accuse people of not being open-minded spiritually or politically or what have you. People need to understand how to think critically and evaluate evidence with respect to basic bias analysis, but it seems so very few bother to do so… which is why you have all sorts of intolerant extremism contributing to discourse (political or otherwise) that has a very unfavorable signal to noise ratio.
Oy! My quote! She just borrowed it ;).
Wrong. Toleration, in many cases, does equate to approval. That can’t be denied unless we turn logic on its head.
For instance, most gunshows will have a display or kiosk (or several) where neo-Nazi and white supremacist materials are hawked. There is a long, long history of an association between the extremist gun cultures and white supremacism.
Further, gunshows are about capitalism; that is, vendors participate because they know they’ll find a market for what they’re selling. You really have to ask yourself: if you go to a computer show, you’ll find vendors selling H/W, S/W and peripherals. If you go to a home improvement show, vendors will be selling siding, windows, tools and the like. But if you go to a gunshow, you’lll find guns and white supremacist/neo-nazi crap.
So going by your logic, because I’m tolerating your comments, that also means I approve of them, right? But you’re saying in some cases it does and in some cases it doesn’t. Pray tell, what is the criteria that determines when it does and when it doesn’t?
Do you have any idea of what a free society is about? I’m sure you adore that 1A “free speech” thing, so do you know what it actually strives to protect?
Think.
Let’s say I approve of the designated hitter rule in baseball. By all definitions, that means I also tolerate it. Thus, saying toleration does not equal approval is not true.
Pray tell, what is the criteria that determines when it does and when it doesn’t?
That’s pretty easy query and it feeds into your 1A questions. I may support the right of various groups I vehemently disagree with to voice their nonsense–that’s toleration. However, I’m under no obligation to provide them a forum or venue to do so–that’s approval.
Tell us, why do gun shows attract (and they have for a very long time) those advocating a white supremacist message (ex: Turner Diaries and the like). I think your argument that it’s a ‘tolerated’ view is wrong because even white supremacists are smart enough not to waste their time at venues where their message/product isn’t getting a market.
So… what exactly is your agenda here?
I didn’t realize I had to have an agenda. If I must, I suppose it would be to counter the myth that certain groups have no responsibility for the actions of its members.
You don’t have to have an agenda, but I am trying to figure out what the point is that you’re trying to make. So thank you for stating it.
Best I can say here is that if you’re going to group people together based upon one element they have in common, it doesn’t mean that everyone sharing that one element shares the other traits and behaviors. Nor does it mean that somehow we can be held responsible for the actions of others. You may have some weird uncle in your extended family, and just because you happen to share a last name or a bloodline doesn’t mean that you are crazy or tolerate or approve of anything he does or stands for, nor that you have to be responsible for his actions.
I probably do have a weird uncle or three in the family. However, I believe it’s incumbent on my family to not pretend they aren’t there. We should take reasonable steps to ensure their “weirdness” doesn’t harm others.
Would you deny the rhetoric of the NRA and GOP may cause certain elements with those ranks to behave badly?
Would you deny the rhetoric of the Brady Campaign and Democrat party may cause certain elements with those ranks to behave badly?
Probably not.
But there’s behaving badly and behaving badly.
Frankly, there’s little evidence what the Dems and Bradys say is causing people to go out and kill cops and citizens. The same can’t be said for the NRA and GOP.
With the Dems and Bradys, you might get a protest or a piece of proposed legislation you don’t like. With the NRA, you wind up with three dead cops and a slew of deceased citizens.