We are willing to tolerate intolerance in order to be perceived as tolerant ourselves

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 3:17 PM GMT
    I know I'm beating a dead horse, but here is what Dan Savage has to say about tolerance:

    Dan Savage http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/11/12/irshad-manji-on-hardballWe are willing to tolerate intolerance in order to be perceived as tolerant ourselves. And that's a mistake and it has to stop. Advocates of tolerance have to be aggressively and unapologetically intolerant of intolerance. Islamic bigots, Christian bigots, racist bigots -they're all aware of this weakness, this desire on the part of the tolerant to model tolerant behavior, and they actively exploit it. Call bullshit on their discriminatory and hateful political agendas and they whine, "You say you're all for tolerance but you're not willing to tolerate me when all I'm doing is attempting to discriminate against you!" And this moronic line of argument seems to paralyze people.

    Look at it this way: Everyone agrees that violence is always wrong—except in self defense. It's wrong, for instance, to shoot people. But it wasn't wrong for that cop at Fort Hood to shoot Nidal Hasan. That was appropriate violence, violence employed to put a stop to violence, violence in self defense. Being intolerant is always wrong—except in defense of tolerance. That's appropriate intolerance, intolerance employed to put a stop to intolerance, tolerance acting in its own self defense.


    I think many RJs (myself included) confused the above in last weekend's thread http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/707507/ with that thread's stated intention (tolerance of other, more conservative opinions on RJ)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 3:46 PM GMT
    Thanks bernd, this is great stuff, and explains a lot..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 3:50 PM GMT
    Your topic post makes a very good point. I am going to remember this !!!
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Nov 15, 2009 4:01 PM GMT
    Definitely some good points you are sharing.
    Food for thought!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 5:03 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCall bullshit on their discriminatory and hateful political agendas and they whine, "You say you're all for tolerance but you're not willing to tolerate me when all I'm doing is attempting to discriminate against you!" And this moronic line of argument seems to paralyze people.

    But that's the crux of the problem. It assumes that "you" are able to make a true determination of what a "discriminatory and hateful political agenda" is.

    Too many people make the wrong determination, especially on here, and come to the conclusion that anything to the right of them politically falls into the "discriminatory and hateful political agendas" - and, as I said, that is the real problem.


    See what can happen if you only spend a little time thinking about what you are saying?

    You are able to make a cogent response like the average human being

    Keep up the good work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 7:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCall bullshit on their discriminatory and hateful political agendas and they whine, "You say you're all for tolerance but you're not willing to tolerate me when all I'm doing is attempting to discriminate against you!" And this moronic line of argument seems to paralyze people.

    But that's the crux of the problem. It assumes that "you" are able to make a true determination of what a "discriminatory and hateful political agenda" is.

    Too many people make the wrong determination, especially on here, and come to the conclusion that anything to the right of them politically falls into the "discriminatory and hateful political agendas" - and, as I said, that is the real problem.


    I am not sure I fully understand your point. Do you mean to say that people deciding everyone to the right of them has "discriminatory and hateful political agendas" is the real problem and that "discriminatory and hateful political agendas" aren't?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 7:44 PM GMT
    So does this mean we sink down to that level and become intolerant ourselves and become what we hate?
    Or just to stop turning the other cheek so we don't get slapped again?
    Even then, when is the line drawn between the two?
    When do we go from activists to hypocrites, and have we already crossed that line?

    Food for thought I guess. I missed last weeks argument, so feel free to ignore me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 9:18 PM GMT
    Looks like Dan Savage has been reading some Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse (1964) is known for advancing the notion that tolerance needn't tolerate repression in any form; doing so is actually intolerant.

    Marcuse, H. (1964). One dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. New York: Routledge Classics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 9:34 PM GMT
    I agree. Not challenging someone that lies and demonizes a group just helps perpetuates the intolerance. In the case of gays, the intolerance has been programmed into us by societies contrived morality until some gays feel the need to accept shame and humiliation as their fault - thus the don't rock the boat mentality.

    If you pay attention to how some gays buy into an anti gay mentality and then blame themselves for the persecution, it is quite amazing. It is truly a case of Stockholm syndrome. Better to just call bullshit on it and be free.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 11:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    MonkeyPuck saidI am not sure I fully understand your point. Do you mean to say that people deciding everyone to the right of them has "discriminatory and hateful political agendas" is the real problem and that "discriminatory and hateful political agendas" aren't?


    If the judgement is in error that the policies and agenda supported by those to the right of a person are "discriminatory and hateful political agendas" and if, in fact, they are not, but the person making such a judgement views their judgement of those policies and agendas as being justifiably intolerant, they are being, by definition, intollerant in error.



    Thanks for the clarification.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2009 11:56 PM GMT
    But this issue is not a one way street. It may even go more than two ways.

    A lot of general public had to tolerate gays and lesbians acting badly i the Streets, when they did not win the vote for yes to same sex marriage. They stopped traffic, peole from getting home from work, people doing their thing. making unsafe for people to go to the Temple so on, yet if they won, they would of told the other side to build a bridge and get over it.........

    Just my thought, as I too live in a democratic country, and I've seen New Australians acting so badly trying to stop a women from talking in public, before elections, because they did not won't hear what she had to say, and preventing the rest of us from doing so. She had the right to her say as Ms Palin did, and be safe to do so, and then people go to the polls, and now, for now Ms Palin is gone. Some people are happy about this, others are not.

    It's not a once way street.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 12:06 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCall bullshit on their discriminatory and hateful political agendas and they whine, "You say you're all for tolerance but you're not willing to tolerate me when all I'm doing is attempting to discriminate against you!" And this moronic line of argument seems to paralyze people.

    But that's the crux of the problem. It assumes that "you" are able to make a true determination of what a "discriminatory and hateful political agenda" is.

    Too many people make the wrong determination, especially on here, and come to the conclusion that anything to the right of them politically falls into the "discriminatory and hateful political agendas" - and, as I said, that is the real problem.

    Na, I disagree with you here. "Discriminatory and hateful political agendas" are the real problem.
    I think that most people are able to determine for themselves what constitutes rhetoric of "discriminatory and hateful political agendas". But, as everything in this big country, even the percent-wise small group, that bash everything to the right or left of them, amount to way to many trolls. Everyone on here needs a healthy dose of 'ignore the trolls'.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Nov 16, 2009 3:35 AM GMT