Discussion in 'General Chat' started by musicguy, May 10, 2011.
To be clear, I'm not a shitlib.
I think the big picture point is a tolerant society must accept some individuals within it will not be tolerant of all things or believe in all societal mechanisms some deem appropriate to, in the eyes of the power structure, increase tolerance. "Diversity" is a great example of this as well as one the can expose rather inconsistent premises inside the concept.
That comment does not help your case.
Anagrams, you doing it wrong.
Anal penetration = prenatal to inane.
What is a shitlib???
I'm with you to an extent. I think tolerance is a good thing. But the thing is, the very idea of tolerance suggests that the person tolerating disapproves of the thing he is tolerating. For example, I think "genderqueer" is a dumb stunt pulled by people who have a pathetic need for attention, differentiation and victim status. And I also think that anyone who has a driving need to mutilate their genitals has a mental illness. But I also want people to be happy and think that everyone has ownership over their own body, so I tolerate those behaviors.
My point is, for most of the people spouting off about "tolerance", the things they are so proud of tolerating are things that they DO approve of, and therefore tolerance doesn't come into play. I don't think tolerance means having to agree with everyone's opinions, but I would note that the person who posted that blurb was using it as a justification for unfriending all of the Republicans and christians that he knew. In other words, it comes down to "tolerance is something that other people should do for my favored groups/classes."
I'm totally on board with the idea of not giving people a hard time for not following conventional gender roles. If you're a more feminine man, that should be fine. But all this stuff about "genderqueers" and such...do we really need to do that? If you're a man who doesn't follow typical "masculine" behavior patterns, is it really a big deal to be called "he"?
Do you have to disapprove though?
If you look back to things like religious tolerance, I don't think there is a indication that you necessarily disapprove of the thing you are tolerating. If you are a catholic who is totally OK with protestants, do you disapprove or just believe something different? Obviously there are some catholics who disapproved, but they aren't the ones that I would call tolerant.
Maybe it is more "disagree" rather than "disapprove"? Seems like there are plenty of Christians who would disagree with the Jews about Jesus, but wouldn't say they disapprove of Judaism.
Intolerant liberals all worship at the altar of the Daily Show. Snap!
Help me parse this, Mr. Fancy-Words. "Diversity" is a great example of one of those things that some people (whom a tolerant society should accept) will not be tolerant of? Pretty sure I got that right. The second part I'm struggling with - did you drop a word somewhere? (I am broad-minded enough to tolerate your negligent typing.) But are you saying that diversity exposes inconsistent premises within the concept of tolerance because there's a zero-sum game aspect? Or something else?
It's the lib part you're missing?
I agree with all of this. But I think it also makes sense to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathtub gin, or whatever the appropriate trope is. The fact that lots of dumb people completely misuse the term to falsely claim the perceived moral high ground doesn't mean that if understood in the sense most people here seem to be using it, it isn't a valuable and and even necessary concept.
In this respect, it's similar to discussions about racism or sexism. People have seized upon those terms to and their perceived normative value in order to cynically (or just stupidly) advance rhetorical, political, or financial agendas. But those terms achieved what currency or force they have because they they described very real conditions and behaviors. They fact that they frequently are incorrectly invoked in circumstances where they clearly are unwarranted does not somehow mean that the problems they properly describe are not real or worthy of attention.
agree.I want to fucking slam my head into a wall every time I see that phrase.thanks
Be more tolerant of tolerance.
I represented a member of the Nation of Islam once. It's not so much that I was tolerant of his views as I was tolerant of his hundred dollar bills with which he paid me.
Ugh, asking me to re-channel what I was thinking...
IMO, "diversity" does not really mean actual diversity, but is a code word. If "diversity" really meant "to be diverse" Asians would qualify for affirmative action. Poor whites from rural settings would too. I have noticed in recent years even "diversity" folks have realized the hollowness of this mantra and changed to "under represented minorities" and the like, because you know, we don't want them over represented minorities fucking things up.
So the inconsistent premise is the one that usually goes along the lines of, "We benefit from diversity and therefore take steps to ensure a diverse student body/work force." If that was true people from Appalachia would all be heavily recruited and have easy admittance to prestigious schools and structured retention programs to help them succeed at something they probably were ill prepared to succeed at. What that diversity premise really means is, "We think we need a certain number of black and hispanics, along with the occasional trans person to liven things up, for us to feel good about ourselves."
Or something like that.
Who doesn't need the occasional trans to liven things up? No judgments.
Gotcha. Thanks for the 'splanation.
Separate names with a comma.