4 ms·
> Does anything straightforwardly emerge from these examples? Do they reveal anything about the nature of tolerance? No, Alexander's point is precisely that to
by amadeuspagel 6y ago
> Does anything straightforwardly emerge from these examples? Do they reveal anything about the nature of tolerance?
No, Alexander's point is precisely that tolerance might be more complex then it appears. This is what happens when someone who is used to pieces with ten straightforward examples of the outgroup being bad encounters an actual attempt to understand and think about something.
- user-the-name 6y agoLet me tell you for absolutely sure, the author is not, in any way, somebody used to "pieces with ten straightforward examples". I mean, the very next sentence after the list of those is "This is an extremely unusual and heterogenous group of texts. This is not, in and of itself, a problem; writing lengthy essays that swerve among heterogenous groups of topics is kind of my jam."
- phnofive 6y ago> Alexander's point is precisely that tolerance might be more complex then it appears. That is a patently obvious claim for which anecdotes appearing to support that conclusion - but implying another - are provided. Why do you think he chose those examples? How is tolerance more complex? What should be done to change how we approach it, if anything? Put another way, it’s a valid rational argument against the status quo, but without any alternatives suggested, it is a purposeless one - we all know we could do better at anything.