?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile My Website Previous Previous Next Next
Mark Atwood
fallenpegasus
fallenpegasus
Having a friend of a different race doesn't make you a 'tolerant' individual. Not wanting to beat the shit out of people you disagree with (including racists and pro lifers!) is the mark of true tolerance.


That's something I need to work on myself, tho I'm certainly not alone in it. And the people who talk the most about their own "tolerance", are the most guilty...
4 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
rhonan From: rhonan Date: November 29th, 2006 04:07 am (UTC) (Link)
True, but tollerance is much akin to salvation in Roman Catholic thought: they are both things one has to work on constantly.
mauser From: mauser Date: November 29th, 2006 07:35 am (UTC) (Link)
And on that basis, why should anyone really consider Tolerance so sacrosanct?

Tolerance is overvalued. What we need is INtolerance! But it needs to be better coordinated.ç
elfs From: elfs Date: November 29th, 2006 10:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've often been accused of making razor distinctions between words: hypocrisy versus cynisism, or private versus personal. Let me make a new one:

Tolerant versus diverse.

Let me suggest that "tolerating" someone because of their level of melanin production not only doesn't make you a "tolerant" individual, but that if that's a critical categorical statement within your value system then your value system is seriously fucked up.

Diversity has come to mean "containing many different, interacting points of view." Tolerant, on the other hand, has become a code word, especially from the more liberal camps, for "Respectfully refraining from criticism of different points of view."

Tolerance implies that differences between people cannot be reconciled, that there is no concrete reality among persons such that both can point to it and seek common ground: differences are not to be negotiated, but only managed, usually by holding one's voice. The way "tolerance" has come to be used is to suggest that cultural or religious differences are as innate, as natural, and as immune to revision as one's skin color (please refrain from Michael Jackson jokes). "That's just they way those people are, we should tolerate them and not challenge them."

I'm pleased that some of the Right gets this: the evangelicals (both religious and secular), at least, never give up on the assumption that someone can be convinced to their point of view. THey appreciate that diversity is a human state without "tolerating" it: instead, they challenge it, and if some of them do so from the point of view of having a favorite sky fairy, then its the duty of we who have no fairies in our skies (in our pants are another matter (see? Every post is lighthearted when you work the word "pants" into it somehow (why yes, I like lisp, why do you ask?))) to challenge them right back and not freakin' "tolerate" them while they go about their evangelicalism.

Unfortunately, not all of the right gets this: witness the whiplash schizophrenia of the neocons, whom one day insist on the diverse view that the Middle East can adopt the liberal, enlightment human rights agenda, and on the next take the "tolerant" standpoint that those people are just the way they are, and we can "tolerate" them so long as they stay in their own box and leave the "tolerant" West alone.
zsero From: zsero Date: December 1st, 2006 07:50 am (UTC) (Link)
The schizophrenia only exists because you're lumping two distinct sets of people together under the label "neocons". Which neocons can you name who think that "those people are just the way they are"? That policy is not generally associated with neocons; it's more the stance of the so-called "realists" who seem to have gained the upper hand in the administration in the past few weeks, and sidelined the neocons. Or are you using "neocon" as a generic term of abuse for anyone associated with the administration?
4 comments or Leave a comment