Edit: Let me make this make sense for the people who are so eager to downvote one of their own. Let’s say you attend an endangered whale conservation group, but data shows the group’s actions (due to a few careless individuals) have actually led to more whale deaths than it has prevented. Then your response to someone critiquing you is “then don’t join the group”? You see how that is unproductive, if not morally reprehensible?
This condescending attitude is the same type of exclusionary BS that got us into needing pride parades in the first place, you know.
“Don’t think like me? You’re not welcome here. We cannot accommodate a diversity of perspectives. It’s our way or the highway.”
And liberals wonder why right wingers accuse them of being fascists.
In seriousness, I don’t think that the person you were replying to was saying “You’re excluded.” They were trying to say “Okay, you don’t like them and think they shouldn’t happen. In that case, don’t go to them and don’t support them.” You’re not obligated to like the same things that the rest of the LGBT community likes. That seems pretty reasonable and the opposite of fascism.
In fact, I’d say you are perfectly within your rights to vocally express your distaste for Pride parades. It’s reasonable to find them distasteful while still supporting the LGBT community. You could also voice what you dislike about them and what you’d like to see change so that they better support what you’d like them to achieve for the community. I don’t think that you’d be within your rights to actually stop the parades from happening, just like I don’t think others would be within their rights to force you to attend.
Edit: Clearly none of you have ever heard of Horseshoe theory. Try reading a little before spouting harmful opinions on the Internet.
Did I say it was fascist to say “Don’t go”? No I said implying that it’s fine to exclude everyone who thinks differently, is an example of why right wingers accuse left leaning folks (who tend not to be fascists), of being fascists.
The point being that disengaging from potentially productive dialog with potential allies for arbitrary reasons, while not fascism, tends to lead to the perception of strict, unwavering, inerrant ideology, which looks very similar on the surface.
If there are 5 gays, 1 bi, and 1 trans person on an island of straight people, I believe they should all try to see past each other’s differences in order to unite for their common advancement, rather than saying “oh you don’t like how we do it? then don’t go”
Not everyone in any community is going to agree on the correct methods of achieving common goals. You’re free to try to change how the community’s approach. You’re free to try to build your own approach. You’re also free to decide whether you want to participate or not.
I don’t see how any of that excludes anyone, disengages from productive dialogue, or leads to right-wingers thinking that left-wingers are fascists.
You are talking about disengaging from dialogue, but I don’t see you actually engaging in it yourself. You stated “I dislike Pride parades”, then said it is exclusionary to suggest that you maybe could just choose not to attend. What I didn’t see you say until well after my original comment is what you would like to see changed about the parades or engaging with others about how that might be achieved.
What you said isn’t exclusionary. What the commenter I replied to said, is.
And I already replied to other comments in this thread well before yours, stating what I’d like to see done. Please see those replies below since I don’t feel the need to repeat myself.
Lol no. I think that agreeing on higher standards for what kind of clothing and actions are not acceptable in public parades, would go a long way toward actually helping the LGBT+ community gain acceptance rather than hurting our image.
We will never “gain acceptance” by dressing and acting the way conservatives want us to.
Remember, these people are absolutely willing to define “being trans near children” as a sex crime. Our existence, to them, is a sick deviant perverted sex act. Two men holding hands in public is “grooming children”.
When you draw these lines between the “acceptable queers” and everyone else, all you’re doing is putting yourself inside of a shrinking circle. That circle will eventually shrink to the point where even you, the acceptable queer, no longer fit inside it, because our entire existence is fundamentally unacceptable to them. And when that happens, there will be no one else left to stand in solidarity with you.
I never drew that line, you did for your strawman argument. Typical lib response tbh. I never said there are “acceptable queers” and “not acceptable queers”. I said we need to have standards for what is considered acceptable in the context of public parades.
Conservatives are willing to define “being trans near children” as a sex crime, mostly b/c of the lies and misconceptions they get told/reinforced by conservative politicians and pastors about LGBT+, would you agree?
And what do you think those politicians and pastors use as “evidence” that we are all sexual deviants? If you think images and photos of sexual behavior at Pride parades is not one of them, you’re mistaken. It’s a public display, and it’s easy for them to say “why aren’t these people classified as sex offenders for doing such heinous acts in public?”
I stated a simple fact: pride parades currently hurt our image. People in this thread can’t seem to accept that.
You’re talking about people who claim to genuinely believe that schools are putting out litterboxes for children who identify as cats. Conservatives don’t need evidence, and never have. Genuinely, when have you ever seen a conservative make an evidence based argument against allowing our existence?
Evidence doesn’t factor into their worldview. If it did, they wouldn’t be conservatives. They will appeal to it when convenient, and ignore it or invent it the rest of the time. We can be as refined and polite as we like, or as depraved and deviant as we like, and it will not matter one iota to how they view us. They will still work diligently towards our extermination either way, and they will make up as many lies about us as they have to along the way.
You can try your best to be “one of the good ones”, but all that means is you get to be last one in the gas hut, after there are no more bodies left for you to shovel into the incinerator.
Lmao you just did it again 🤣 you built up another strawman so you could knock it down 🤣
The reason being: No, I’m not talking about that small minority of conservatives at all.
YOU are the one being judgmental here, not them.
Did you know in fact most conservatives aren’t crazy diabolical evil people? That’s a perception leftists tend to have b/c they don’t have any real conservative friends, they just get angry about stuff they see on the media and attribute it to all conservatives, saying “how could they support this kind of rhetoric? everyone who watches or supports this news source must be evil too!”
Turns out when you actually try and talk to them, they’re people too.
Only when you dehumanize your perceived enemies, do they actually become the inhumane enemies you wished never to create.
Clearly, I just imagined that conservative politicians all across the world have been eagerly trying to legislate away our right to exist. Thank God for that. I guess it was all just a terrible dream. It must have been all those “good”, “decent”, “kind hearted” conservatives who stood up to stop them, rather than just spouting some bullshit about being “Socially liberal, economically conservative”, or claiming that they “support gay and trans rights but just think all this woke nonsense has gone too far”, and then voting for those same people anyway.
Inclusivity without something being excluded usually makes for a powder keg of likely confrontation. As it was pointed out to me recently, being tolerant of the intolerant, should not be a thing, regardless of how tolerant your society (or group, or tribe, or culture, or… You get the point) is trying to be.
The fact is: pride is inclusive to the point of people being inclusive of it. There’s a lot of people at pride events: straights (allies), gay, bi, trans, queer… The whole rainbow is represented. With only one huge requirement: that you are inclusive enough to tolerate their views… If you are intolerant of any of them, then pride isn’t the place for you.
It’s the exact reason the protestors who think that the LGBTQ+ community are a bunch of sinners who will burn in hell, are turned away. The only real requirement at pride is that you tolerate other viewpoints, sexualities, sexual orientations, etc. If you’re intolerant of any of it, either keep it to yourself, or stay home. That’s as simple as it gets.
… At least, that’s the idea anyways. There’s room for debate on this point, on a case by case basis apparently; for reasons I won’t get into. Some pride organizers have seen fit to exclude groups of people based on who they are, not what they believe or tolerate. This is a whole discussion unto itself and not central to the point. It’s supposed to be an event where you can be who you are, free from judgement and persecution from others. If you are someone who wants to impose that judgement or persecution, then you’re not welcome.
I understand these concepts, I’m not even LGBTQ+, I’m an ally, a supporter, and I have no animosity towards any people for their sexual… anything. I’ve been to pride events, and supported LGBTQ+ rights and the communities right to exist in all forms. I will vote with my ballot and wallet to support LGBTQ+ rights and the community on all fronts.
At every pride event I’ve been to, there’s always been a protest, predictably. There’s almost always, also been a counter protest. My favorite was at a local regional pride event in a nearby town. It wasn’t a large event, but the protestors were there. There were also counter protestors holding large, almost billboard sized black sheets to isolate them and their messages of hate. They were unwelcome, but since they were on public land expressing their opinion, a conditionally protected activity, they were allowed to be there, while by the same rights, the counter protestors were allowed to be there, blocking them and their signage containing hate, from being seen. It was glorious.
The only thing that a tolerant community/society should make an exception for is intolerance. Period.
So if pride isn’t for you because you will not tolerate any of the communities represented, then I would advise you to stay home.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’ll fight anyone who tries to take that away from you, but I’ll also fight to maintain inclusivity in an inclusive community against the intolerant. You should too, but far be it for me to tell you what to think.
You don’t see the glaring contradiction in what you just said?
How can the point of Pride be to “tolerate everyone with no exceptions,” while at the same time “never tolerate the intolerant”? You can’t have both!
The reason being: what criteria can you possibly use to decide who is “intolerant”?
Let me give you an example with the answers I assume you’d give… Have you ever heard the Chinese parable of “Good Luck, Bad Luck, Who Knows” before? This example is similar…
Q: Is a gay man allowed at Pride? A: in general, yes
Q: What if you learn they don’t like furries? A: then no, they can’t.
Q: What if they want to be accepting of furries but they don’t know how? A: then sure, yes, let’s discuss.
Q: What if they killed a furry once? A: then no, absolutely not!
Q: What if they went to prison for 20 years for their crime, realized what they did was wrong, and decided to make a concerted effort every day to be more positive & inclusive, which is why they now attend Pride every year and donate to LGBT+ organizations in honor of the person they killed? A: well then yes, clearly they’re an ally. they can come!
Q: Okay, what if they don’t like leather strap ons? A: ah, then no…
You see how this could keep going forever?
You’re either inclusive or you’re not. End of story.
I am aware of this paradox. It is well known and well documented.
The fact is, the paradox must exist.
Being tolerant of intolerance in an of itself will destroy tolerance. This was described quite well in my opinion, with this relatively terse and straightforward illustration:
Intolerance is literally the only thing that the tolerant should be intolerant of.
That’s exactly what’s being described, and exactly what has happened and exactly the point of all of this discussion. You are free to believe what you want, both of tolerance and intolerance, both of me and the community, and of society. Nobody can, and nobody should ever try to take that from you. You can think and believe what you want. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re free to say and do what you like as an extension of your constitutionally protected rights. The thing that right does not grant you, is that anyone needs to listen or respect your opinions, just as you are not obligated to listen or respect anyone else’s thoughts or opinions.
What this also doesn’t grant you is freedom from the consequences of expressing those thoughts, whether that’s in the form of downvotes, being excluded from social gatherings like pride, or being incarcerated for threatening others. Not that I’m saying you’ve done any of that, nor that you’re guilty of any crimes at all, I’m merely pointing out the facts. I have no need to judge you, nor do I have any need to know or change your opinion of me.
It’s a wonderful thing, isn’t it? Freedom? It’s a paradox unto itself as well. We live in a world full of paradoxes; not to mention logical fallacies. There’s a lot to be said on this topic, and it’s incredibly deep, and there’s no easy answer no matter where you start and no matter how long you examine the issues. I’ve made my decisions, and you must make yours.
All I want to say at this point, is I wish you all the best. Have a wonderful day.
I reject this theory outright. Intolerance exists everywhere, even among the “tolerant” - in other words, you dig deep enough and you’ll always find something the “tolerant” group doesn’t like about other groups.
For example - and I’m not necessarily saying this is bad! - many so-called “tolerant” leftists won’t tolerate certain jokes, certain protected speech and certain people (e.g. cops, billionaires, evangelicals, men with “traditional” views on women, etc), sometimes even going so far as to “cancel” them.
That silencing, whether you believe it is deserved/justified or not, is what right wingers view as intolerance of their ideology, and it’s what is partially responsible for driving further division and polarization between our groups.
Yet I am the only leftist I know who is willing to admit that leftists exhibit characteristics of intolerance.
The only thing that really matters is cooperation. Because we are tribal creatures, we only look to our “in-group” for cooperation. When one tribe grows larger than another, their version of tolerance (i.e. the things they’re willing to tolerate) becomes the dominant view.
The Holocaust was an example of the most extreme polarization ever observed in human history. There were many factors that led to this, and claiming that those who “tolerated” Nazis were responsible for the rise of “intolerance” implies they had the power to stop them. When for all practical purposes, once the critical mass of the “in group” (Nazis) had already been reached, their level of intolerance for other groups was so extreme that cooperation between groups/tribes became impossible.
I’m of the opinion that intolerance is a symptom of the disease of misunderstanding.
The more we understand each other, the more intolerance can dissipate. And this view is not a fantasy. It is supported by centuries of research into human behavior.
In short, one thing we know with absolute confidence is that as humans we fear what we do not understand. For that reason, I urge those who can’t see a path toward forgiving their enemies to take the most radical action imaginable: to try.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :) I hope you have a good day too.
Tolerance is not a paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Those who break the contract of tolerance with intolerance no longer deserve it, and should be excluded from the protections given to those who do follow it.
Watch this and tell me it’s impossible to tolerate “intolerant” people.
I appreciate the share, but the last thing I want is youtube to start adding political content to my feed after i’ve spent all this time curating its algorithm into something that is mine.
There is no nuance or critical thinking in your take whatsoever.
There is a lot of nuance in my statement. But you are right, I didn’t give any examples. So let’s pull one of yours from earlier;
How can the point of Pride be to “tolerate everyone with no exceptions,” while at the same time “never tolerate the intolerant”? You can’t have both!
Q: Is a gay man allowed at Pride? A: in general, yes
Q: What if you learn they don’t like furries? A: then no, they can’t.
Q: What if they want to be accepting of furries but they don’t know how? A: then sure, yes, let’s discuss.
Q: What if they killed a furry once? A: then no, absolutely not!
Q: What if they went to prison for 20 years for their crime, realized what they did was wrong, and decided to make a concerted effort every day to be more positive & inclusive, which is why they now attend Pride every year and donate to LGBT+ organizations in honor of the person they killed? A: well then yes, clearly they’re an ally. they can come!
Q: Okay, what if they don’t like leather strap ons? A: ah, then no…
This sounds like the reading of a contract with a list of arbitrary rules. Every social convention i’ve seen has also been incredibly arbitrary.
Breaking a social contract doesn’t require permanent and total retribution; it usually has a lot of if this then that conventions built right into it. Someone making an off color joke requires a ‘hey bro, thats not cool’ compared to a neo nazi advocating for the camps to come back at a local government office.
My point is that once the social contract is broken, you aren’t breaking it when you call someone else out for doing so.
Don’t go to them. Seems simple.
Yep. Just send your kids instead
Edit: Let me make this make sense for the people who are so eager to downvote one of their own. Let’s say you attend an endangered whale conservation group, but data shows the group’s actions (due to a few careless individuals) have actually led to more whale deaths than it has prevented. Then your response to someone critiquing you is “then don’t join the group”? You see how that is unproductive, if not morally reprehensible?
This condescending attitude is the same type of exclusionary BS that got us into needing pride parades in the first place, you know.
“Don’t think like me? You’re not welcome here. We cannot accommodate a diversity of perspectives. It’s our way or the highway.”
And liberals wonder why right wingers accuse them of being fascists.
Ummm…
In seriousness, I don’t think that the person you were replying to was saying “You’re excluded.” They were trying to say “Okay, you don’t like them and think they shouldn’t happen. In that case, don’t go to them and don’t support them.” You’re not obligated to like the same things that the rest of the LGBT community likes. That seems pretty reasonable and the opposite of fascism.
In fact, I’d say you are perfectly within your rights to vocally express your distaste for Pride parades. It’s reasonable to find them distasteful while still supporting the LGBT community. You could also voice what you dislike about them and what you’d like to see change so that they better support what you’d like them to achieve for the community. I don’t think that you’d be within your rights to actually stop the parades from happening, just like I don’t think others would be within their rights to force you to attend.
Edit: Clearly none of you have ever heard of Horseshoe theory. Try reading a little before spouting harmful opinions on the Internet.
Did I say it was fascist to say “Don’t go”? No I said implying that it’s fine to exclude everyone who thinks differently, is an example of why right wingers accuse left leaning folks (who tend not to be fascists), of being fascists.
The point being that disengaging from potentially productive dialog with potential allies for arbitrary reasons, while not fascism, tends to lead to the perception of strict, unwavering, inerrant ideology, which looks very similar on the surface.
If there are 5 gays, 1 bi, and 1 trans person on an island of straight people, I believe they should all try to see past each other’s differences in order to unite for their common advancement, rather than saying “oh you don’t like how we do it? then don’t go”
Not everyone in any community is going to agree on the correct methods of achieving common goals. You’re free to try to change how the community’s approach. You’re free to try to build your own approach. You’re also free to decide whether you want to participate or not.
I don’t see how any of that excludes anyone, disengages from productive dialogue, or leads to right-wingers thinking that left-wingers are fascists.
You are talking about disengaging from dialogue, but I don’t see you actually engaging in it yourself. You stated “I dislike Pride parades”, then said it is exclusionary to suggest that you maybe could just choose not to attend. What I didn’t see you say until well after my original comment is what you would like to see changed about the parades or engaging with others about how that might be achieved.
What you said isn’t exclusionary. What the commenter I replied to said, is.
And I already replied to other comments in this thread well before yours, stating what I’d like to see done. Please see those replies below since I don’t feel the need to repeat myself.
What? You said you don’t like pride parades and the response was “don’t go then”. Not everything is for everyone.
Do you want everyone who enjoys pride parades to change them to specifically cater to you?
Lol no. I think that agreeing on higher standards for what kind of clothing and actions are not acceptable in public parades, would go a long way toward actually helping the LGBT+ community gain acceptance rather than hurting our image.
We will never “gain acceptance” by dressing and acting the way conservatives want us to.
Remember, these people are absolutely willing to define “being trans near children” as a sex crime. Our existence, to them, is a sick deviant perverted sex act. Two men holding hands in public is “grooming children”.
When you draw these lines between the “acceptable queers” and everyone else, all you’re doing is putting yourself inside of a shrinking circle. That circle will eventually shrink to the point where even you, the acceptable queer, no longer fit inside it, because our entire existence is fundamentally unacceptable to them. And when that happens, there will be no one else left to stand in solidarity with you.
I never drew that line, you did for your strawman argument. Typical lib response tbh. I never said there are “acceptable queers” and “not acceptable queers”. I said we need to have standards for what is considered acceptable in the context of public parades.
Conservatives are willing to define “being trans near children” as a sex crime, mostly b/c of the lies and misconceptions they get told/reinforced by conservative politicians and pastors about LGBT+, would you agree?
And what do you think those politicians and pastors use as “evidence” that we are all sexual deviants? If you think images and photos of sexual behavior at Pride parades is not one of them, you’re mistaken. It’s a public display, and it’s easy for them to say “why aren’t these people classified as sex offenders for doing such heinous acts in public?”
I stated a simple fact: pride parades currently hurt our image. People in this thread can’t seem to accept that.
You’re talking about people who claim to genuinely believe that schools are putting out litterboxes for children who identify as cats. Conservatives don’t need evidence, and never have. Genuinely, when have you ever seen a conservative make an evidence based argument against allowing our existence?
Evidence doesn’t factor into their worldview. If it did, they wouldn’t be conservatives. They will appeal to it when convenient, and ignore it or invent it the rest of the time. We can be as refined and polite as we like, or as depraved and deviant as we like, and it will not matter one iota to how they view us. They will still work diligently towards our extermination either way, and they will make up as many lies about us as they have to along the way.
You can try your best to be “one of the good ones”, but all that means is you get to be last one in the gas hut, after there are no more bodies left for you to shovel into the incinerator.
deleted by creator
Lmao you just did it again 🤣 you built up another strawman so you could knock it down 🤣
The reason being: No, I’m not talking about that small minority of conservatives at all.
YOU are the one being judgmental here, not them.
Did you know in fact most conservatives aren’t crazy diabolical evil people? That’s a perception leftists tend to have b/c they don’t have any real conservative friends, they just get angry about stuff they see on the media and attribute it to all conservatives, saying “how could they support this kind of rhetoric? everyone who watches or supports this news source must be evil too!”
Turns out when you actually try and talk to them, they’re people too.
Only when you dehumanize your perceived enemies, do they actually become the inhumane enemies you wished never to create.
Clearly, I just imagined that conservative politicians all across the world have been eagerly trying to legislate away our right to exist. Thank God for that. I guess it was all just a terrible dream. It must have been all those “good”, “decent”, “kind hearted” conservatives who stood up to stop them, rather than just spouting some bullshit about being “Socially liberal, economically conservative”, or claiming that they “support gay and trans rights but just think all this woke nonsense has gone too far”, and then voting for those same people anyway.
Wait are you trying to exclude people who don’t dress the same as you want them to?
Nope the exact opposite lol I’m excluding myself until that minority sees that it’s not helping them gain acceptance.
Inclusivity without something being excluded usually makes for a powder keg of likely confrontation. As it was pointed out to me recently, being tolerant of the intolerant, should not be a thing, regardless of how tolerant your society (or group, or tribe, or culture, or… You get the point) is trying to be.
The fact is: pride is inclusive to the point of people being inclusive of it. There’s a lot of people at pride events: straights (allies), gay, bi, trans, queer… The whole rainbow is represented. With only one huge requirement: that you are inclusive enough to tolerate their views… If you are intolerant of any of them, then pride isn’t the place for you.
It’s the exact reason the protestors who think that the LGBTQ+ community are a bunch of sinners who will burn in hell, are turned away. The only real requirement at pride is that you tolerate other viewpoints, sexualities, sexual orientations, etc. If you’re intolerant of any of it, either keep it to yourself, or stay home. That’s as simple as it gets.
… At least, that’s the idea anyways. There’s room for debate on this point, on a case by case basis apparently; for reasons I won’t get into. Some pride organizers have seen fit to exclude groups of people based on who they are, not what they believe or tolerate. This is a whole discussion unto itself and not central to the point. It’s supposed to be an event where you can be who you are, free from judgement and persecution from others. If you are someone who wants to impose that judgement or persecution, then you’re not welcome.
I understand these concepts, I’m not even LGBTQ+, I’m an ally, a supporter, and I have no animosity towards any people for their sexual… anything. I’ve been to pride events, and supported LGBTQ+ rights and the communities right to exist in all forms. I will vote with my ballot and wallet to support LGBTQ+ rights and the community on all fronts. At every pride event I’ve been to, there’s always been a protest, predictably. There’s almost always, also been a counter protest. My favorite was at a local regional pride event in a nearby town. It wasn’t a large event, but the protestors were there. There were also counter protestors holding large, almost billboard sized black sheets to isolate them and their messages of hate. They were unwelcome, but since they were on public land expressing their opinion, a conditionally protected activity, they were allowed to be there, while by the same rights, the counter protestors were allowed to be there, blocking them and their signage containing hate, from being seen. It was glorious.
The only thing that a tolerant community/society should make an exception for is intolerance. Period.
So if pride isn’t for you because you will not tolerate any of the communities represented, then I would advise you to stay home.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’ll fight anyone who tries to take that away from you, but I’ll also fight to maintain inclusivity in an inclusive community against the intolerant. You should too, but far be it for me to tell you what to think.
You don’t see the glaring contradiction in what you just said?
How can the point of Pride be to “tolerate everyone with no exceptions,” while at the same time “never tolerate the intolerant”? You can’t have both!
The reason being: what criteria can you possibly use to decide who is “intolerant”?
Let me give you an example with the answers I assume you’d give… Have you ever heard the Chinese parable of “Good Luck, Bad Luck, Who Knows” before? This example is similar…
You see how this could keep going forever?
You’re either inclusive or you’re not. End of story.
I am aware of this paradox. It is well known and well documented.
The fact is, the paradox must exist.
Being tolerant of intolerance in an of itself will destroy tolerance. This was described quite well in my opinion, with this relatively terse and straightforward illustration:
Intolerance is literally the only thing that the tolerant should be intolerant of.
That’s exactly what’s being described, and exactly what has happened and exactly the point of all of this discussion. You are free to believe what you want, both of tolerance and intolerance, both of me and the community, and of society. Nobody can, and nobody should ever try to take that from you. You can think and believe what you want. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re free to say and do what you like as an extension of your constitutionally protected rights. The thing that right does not grant you, is that anyone needs to listen or respect your opinions, just as you are not obligated to listen or respect anyone else’s thoughts or opinions.
What this also doesn’t grant you is freedom from the consequences of expressing those thoughts, whether that’s in the form of downvotes, being excluded from social gatherings like pride, or being incarcerated for threatening others. Not that I’m saying you’ve done any of that, nor that you’re guilty of any crimes at all, I’m merely pointing out the facts. I have no need to judge you, nor do I have any need to know or change your opinion of me.
It’s a wonderful thing, isn’t it? Freedom? It’s a paradox unto itself as well. We live in a world full of paradoxes; not to mention logical fallacies. There’s a lot to be said on this topic, and it’s incredibly deep, and there’s no easy answer no matter where you start and no matter how long you examine the issues. I’ve made my decisions, and you must make yours.
All I want to say at this point, is I wish you all the best. Have a wonderful day.
I reject this theory outright. Intolerance exists everywhere, even among the “tolerant” - in other words, you dig deep enough and you’ll always find something the “tolerant” group doesn’t like about other groups.
For example - and I’m not necessarily saying this is bad! - many so-called “tolerant” leftists won’t tolerate certain jokes, certain protected speech and certain people (e.g. cops, billionaires, evangelicals, men with “traditional” views on women, etc), sometimes even going so far as to “cancel” them.
That silencing, whether you believe it is deserved/justified or not, is what right wingers view as intolerance of their ideology, and it’s what is partially responsible for driving further division and polarization between our groups.
Yet I am the only leftist I know who is willing to admit that leftists exhibit characteristics of intolerance.
The only thing that really matters is cooperation. Because we are tribal creatures, we only look to our “in-group” for cooperation. When one tribe grows larger than another, their version of tolerance (i.e. the things they’re willing to tolerate) becomes the dominant view.
The Holocaust was an example of the most extreme polarization ever observed in human history. There were many factors that led to this, and claiming that those who “tolerated” Nazis were responsible for the rise of “intolerance” implies they had the power to stop them. When for all practical purposes, once the critical mass of the “in group” (Nazis) had already been reached, their level of intolerance for other groups was so extreme that cooperation between groups/tribes became impossible.
I’m of the opinion that intolerance is a symptom of the disease of misunderstanding.
The more we understand each other, the more intolerance can dissipate. And this view is not a fantasy. It is supported by centuries of research into human behavior.
In short, one thing we know with absolute confidence is that as humans we fear what we do not understand. For that reason, I urge those who can’t see a path toward forgiving their enemies to take the most radical action imaginable: to try.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :) I hope you have a good day too.
Gonna continue this from the other guy before me;
Tolerance is not a paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Those who break the contract of tolerance with intolerance no longer deserve it, and should be excluded from the protections given to those who do follow it.
You sound like a demagogue. There is no nuance or critical thinking in your take whatsoever.
Watch this and tell me it’s impossible to tolerate “intolerant” people.
You’re just hurting yourself by not putting effort into discussions that would win you more allies.
I appreciate the share, but the last thing I want is youtube to start adding political content to my feed after i’ve spent all this time curating its algorithm into something that is mine.
There is a lot of nuance in my statement. But you are right, I didn’t give any examples. So let’s pull one of yours from earlier;
This sounds like the reading of a contract with a list of arbitrary rules. Every social convention i’ve seen has also been incredibly arbitrary.
Breaking a social contract doesn’t require permanent and total retribution; it usually has a lot of if this then that conventions built right into it. Someone making an off color joke requires a ‘hey bro, thats not cool’ compared to a neo nazi advocating for the camps to come back at a local government office.
My point is that once the social contract is broken, you aren’t breaking it when you call someone else out for doing so.