3 ms·

I have a suspicion that we have totally different ways of thinking about this, so our disagreement might be about the axioms rather than their consequences, in

by meric 11y ago

I have a suspicion that we have totally different ways of thinking about this, so our disagreement might be about the axioms rather than their consequences, in which case it's probably useless on both sides for us to argue; but I would like to have one more go, to see if our disagreement is really so fundamental. Okay. Let's try that. Why is it valid to say automatically that someone who is intolerant of homophobia is just doing what society is telling him or her to do? Indeed I'd say to the contrary that there are many societies where homophobia is the normal attitude, so that being intolerant of it is very much going against societal norms. That's a good question. If we were in such a society, the annoyance I have for people who follows the crowd and do not think for themselves would not apply to you. Even if I'm in a society where homosexuals are (correctly) treated as equals, then describing as simple conformity my revulsion at an attempt to treat them unequally seems to be extremely uncharitable. Why not simply say that I, too, am "being who I am", because of my upbringing or any other reason? I have distaste for the intolerant of the intolerant, because on one hand, they know the harm intolerance can cause in society, and on the other, they engage in the very same intolerance they know causes harm, and then they have the gall to tell people they are morally superior. That is knowingly causing harm, and then tricking people into thinking they're tolerating - all it provokes is the very same intolerance in other people, and the very same impulse to disguise this intolerance in others. The intolerant have a passive effect of reducing society's tolerance, which have the consequence of suffering in individuals. The intolerant of the intolerant have the same passive effect, except they're now knowingly partaking in this activity. The intolerance of the intolerant makes the following situation possible: "Don't talk to that man, he is a misogynist! Oh by the way I hate misogynists. :)". Intolerance in society allows possible situations where simple label will smear the reputation of someone in other's minds for life, before people get to really know who the person is. And that's the core problem of prejudice, isn't it?

JadeNB 11y ago
EDIT: As I look at my closing paragraph, I see that it comes across as rather dismissive, and I apologise for that. Let me clarify up front that, though I disagree with you, I appreciate and respect your reasoned arguments, and your willingness to continue arguing civilly and rationally. > > Indeed I'd say to the contrary that there are many societies where homophobia is the normal attitude …. > … If we were in such a society, the annoyance I have for people who follows the crowd and do not think for themselves would not apply to you. If you are not in such a society, then you live in a happier world, or at least society, than I do—in particular, one where Antonin Scalia is not a Supreme-Court justice. > I have distaste for the intolerant of the intolerant, because on one hand, they know the harm intolerance can cause in society, and on the other, they engage in the very same intolerance they know causes harm, and then they have the gall to tell people they are morally superior. I think that certainly there are people who are smug about their intolerance of intolerance, just as there are people who are smug about their intolerance of homosexuality—used as a running example just because it's what I started with, not because I think it's the only kind of intolerance. However, I don't see why it's unfair for me simply to be repulsed by intolerance, without having my repulsion automatically judged to be artificial, and in service of some ulterior motive. I agree that the fact that I am repulsed by something that (in my opinion, to be sure!) is actually morally bankrupt, as opposed to someone else's by something that is not, doesn't make me a better person; but I don't think that it makes me worse, either. That, and possibly also what seems to be your blanket assumption that intolerance of intolerance can only be in service of some agenda (and not a genuine emotional or intellectual reaction), I think is where we do, and may simply have to agree to continue to, differ.
- meric 11y ago
  You can be repulsed with someone and still tolerate them. If you operate a shop, you continue to sell to them. If you're friends with their employer, don't tell your friend to fire them. If you are neighbors, you continue to acknowledge their existence when they greet you. And you let your kids play with their kids, so that your values diffuse outwards. When they try to engage you, you give them your attention. If they're homophobic but at the same time they do a good deed, you continue to praise them. When an opportunity arises for you to explain to them, with compassion and respect, their ignorance, you take it up. If you partake in these activities rather than ostracise them from your society, you are tolerating them, repulsion or no. A person who was brought up a racist, but have the attribute of tolerance, will continue to engage the target of his prejudice, and eventually learn of his own prejudice, and his repulsion would be cleared. Tolerance connects a person to reality - it gives a chance for reality to affect change in the person, and vice versa. This is how tolerance can increase society's tolerance. If you wanted to change the world for the better, I think it works better than ostracising and locking up the intolerant. Tolerance means accepting something is part of your reality, even when you don't like it. If tolerating means accepting something only if you like it, it wouldn't be called tolerance...:)

by meric 11y ago

JadeNB 11y ago

EDIT: As I look at my closing paragraph, I see that it comes across as rather dismissive, and I apologise for that. Let me clarify up front that, though I disagree with you, I appreciate and respect your reasoned arguments, and your willingness to continue arguing civilly and rationally. > > Indeed I'd say to the contrary that there are many societies where homophobia is the normal attitude …. > … If we were in such a society, the annoyance I have for people who follows the crowd and do not think for themselves would not apply to you. If you are not in such a society, then you live in a happier world, or at least society, than I do—in particular, one where Antonin Scalia is not a Supreme-Court justice. > I have distaste for the intolerant of the intolerant, because on one hand, they know the harm intolerance can cause in society, and on the other, they engage in the very same intolerance they know causes harm, and then they have the gall to tell people they are morally superior. I think that certainly there are people who are smug about their intolerance of intolerance, just as there are people who are smug about their intolerance of homosexuality—used as a running example just because it's what I started with, not because I think it's the only kind of intolerance. However, I don't see why it's unfair for me simply to be repulsed by intolerance, without having my repulsion automatically judged to be artificial, and in service of some ulterior motive. I agree that the fact that I am repulsed by something that (in my opinion, to be sure!) is actually morally bankrupt, as opposed to someone else's by something that is not, doesn't make me a better person; but I don't think that it makes me worse, either. That, and possibly also what seems to be your blanket assumption that intolerance of intolerance can only be in service of some agenda (and not a genuine emotional or intellectual reaction), I think is where we do, and may simply have to agree to continue to, differ.

meric 11y ago
You can be repulsed with someone and still tolerate them. If you operate a shop, you continue to sell to them. If you're friends with their employer, don't tell your friend to fire them. If you are neighbors, you continue to acknowledge their existence when they greet you. And you let your kids play with their kids, so that your values diffuse outwards. When they try to engage you, you give them your attention. If they're homophobic but at the same time they do a good deed, you continue to praise them. When an opportunity arises for you to explain to them, with compassion and respect, their ignorance, you take it up. If you partake in these activities rather than ostracise them from your society, you are tolerating them, repulsion or no. A person who was brought up a racist, but have the attribute of tolerance, will continue to engage the target of his prejudice, and eventually learn of his own prejudice, and his repulsion would be cleared. Tolerance connects a person to reality - it gives a chance for reality to affect change in the person, and vice versa. This is how tolerance can increase society's tolerance. If you wanted to change the world for the better, I think it works better than ostracising and locking up the intolerant. Tolerance means accepting something is part of your reality, even when you don't like it. If tolerating means accepting something only if you like it, it wouldn't be called tolerance...:)