Which thing? Shirking moral elitists or accidentally signing in as "anonymous"? ;) If it's the former, it must hurt like hell, I've lived by shirking and rejecting, for years. Now, to be fair, I also spend an equal amount of effort in discussion, education and anything else that may help someone realize their loosely and forced ways of "tolerance" are not akin to "acceptance". Which, inherently makes them lesser in their gods eyes, I would argue. That doesn't work, I shirk.
Psych Lit wrote:ROFL! no! the anom thing!
;) Oh that. If you forget to sign in the program assigns you "Anonoymous" as a name. I didn't realize I was anonymous until I was ready to hit submit and was asked to type the characters in a little box next to the submit spot. Instead of scissoring, signing in and clipboarding I just played with the name anonymous, silly program doesn't realize one can do that, I guess. The downside to remaining anonymous is copying those funky security codes at the end and not having access to the insert image feature. Really? I would bet we could remain anonymous and still know who's who.
You're right about Natalie, I'll put her back up after this photo becomes a "stock photo" for the announcement that JJ Jr. is knee deep in Senate seat buying poop. Yep, that was from election night. It's still vague to me whether his tears were for racial pride, Obama in general, the Democrats regaining the White House or seeing a kitten injured. I'm just not sure which it was.
Which thing? Shirking moral elitists or accidentally signing in as "anonymous"? ;) If it's the former, it must hurt like hell, I've lived by shirking and rejecting, for years. Now, to be fair, I also spend an equal amount of effort in discussion, education and anything else that may help someone realize their loosely and forced ways of "tolerance" are not akin to "acceptance". Which, inherently makes them lesser in their gods eyes, I would argue. That doesn't work, I shirk.
I have zero tolerance for anyone who "tolerates" another living being. Snobbery isn't even close to what "tolerance" implies. Tolerance, as it relates to people or groups of people, has come to mean something condescending and morally superior. I don't tolerate people that "tolerate" me. I will tolerate a headache, a heartache a sprained ankle. People? I will either accept or reject. But that's just me, apparently, anonymously. Sorry. ;) It's me.
ROFL! how do you do that?
Which thing? Shirking moral elitists or accidentally signing in as "anonymous"? ;) If it's the former, it must hurt like hell, I've lived by shirking and rejecting, for years. Now, to be fair, I also spend an equal amount of effort in discussion, education and anything else that may help someone realize their loosely and forced ways of "tolerance" are not akin to "acceptance". Which, inherently makes them lesser in their gods eyes, I would argue. That doesn't work, I shirk.
I have zero tolerance for anyone who "tolerates" another living being. Snobbery isn't even close to what "tolerance" implies. Tolerance, as it relates to people or groups of people, has come to mean something condescending and morally superior. I don't tolerate people that "tolerate" me. I will tolerate a headache, a heartache a sprained ankle. People? I will either accept or reject. But that's just me, apparently, anonymously. Sorry. ;) It's me.
I have zero tolerance for anyone who "tolerates" another living being. Snobbery isn't even close to what "tolerance" implies. Tolerance, as it relates to people or groups of people, has come to mean something condescending and morally superior. I don't tolerate people that "tolerate" me. I will tolerate a headache, a heartache a sprained ankle. People? I will either accept or reject. But that's just me, apparently, anonymously. Sorry. ;) It's me.
I was just sitting here, thinking about ... things which divide us, as people. The "biggies." Thinking about that and "tolerance."
First off, is "tolerance" a snobbery?
hmm i suppose. its completely patronizing at any rate.
Taken purely, as "I respect your right to believe that, but I don't believe it" isn't there an inherent ... what? -- "magnanimous condescension" implied there, as well? That being, a sort of unspoken "Sure, you can believe that, but you're wrong. If you were right, I'd believe it too, but given that I don't, and that you've failed to convince me, I'm right, and you're wrong, but I'll let you be wrong" thing? And isn't really the "we'll have to agree to disagree" a stepchild of that, as well, except that it is typically a conversation closer?
i dont think so. i can think of many things where i believe one thing but could argue the other side of the argument with equal passion but not both with true "belief." in the end when these occur its a "gut" decision and while i may firmly believe whatever it is to be the case with what i know right now, i also hold open the possibility that i may change my mind in the future. i think back to some of the beliefs that i held a decade ago and compare them to what i believe today and ive changed my mind about numerous things. this is one of the reasons i like it when people disagree with me about issues. it gives me a chance to reexamine some of them. in fact i try to not become too attached to beliefs for just this reason. there is so much out there that is unknown and todays context will change. its best to go thru life with a somewhat skeptical view.
I suppose a belief in "God" would be the most readily available example -- from both sides of the issue.
its not the belief tho is it? its more about the need to be viewed as right?
So what is the true nature of "tolerance," anyway? Co-existence, side-by-side of opposing beliefs, and principles, I suppose, yes? And a "respect" for ... what? What really? The other party's "right" to be... "wrong?"
it assumes that one has some quasi approval that they are bestowing on aother to me. and what makes that particular persons "grace" important? i dont want to be tolerated. do heterosexuals tolerate each other based only on sexual orientation? id prefer to be accepted or liked or loved or NOT based on the whole package not one or two particular characteristics. People may tolerate someone they dislike because their gain in doing so is greater than the gain that might come from their intolerance. a work situation for example or an elected official or a business person all may tolerate someone they would not under other circumstances but they benefit from their restraint.
typically like to slam shut any conversation about our "right" to life our lives naturally, with that "The Bible says..." thing. That means, of course, homosexual people are put in the strange position of now also having to give some sort of nod to the existence of not only God, but also the "divinely inspired" book written around him and Jesus Christ.
thats an option but there is also the who cares whatcha think option. caring what the bestowers of tolerance have to offer sort of gives an importance to it that imo shouldnt be there. perhaps we reach for it tho because for miniority groups of any kind tolerance seems a step up from hate crimes but im not sure it is. it drives their bigoted behavior underground. id wager that half of the nutcases who rant about gay rights on anon message boards all present as tolerant in public. i was watching larry king last night and he had the osteens on. they are preachers from one of those mega churches. larry king asked them about gay marriage. his was a message of tolerance to a point but he also said something about how everybody was a sinner so who was he to judge. sinner? the only sin he might come up with if he had been speaking of hets rather than gay folk was sex outside of marriage but then again neither of them was a supporter of gay marriage and neither seemed to appreciate the irony there. mrs osteens response was very different. in answering her face pinched up and clearly she found the whole subject distasteful tho she did manage to say that they had gays in their church and they were very nice. (said with a sense of amazement and fearful body language)
I don't. Why, then, do I even bother citing the "true" story of Sodom and Gomorrah, when I don't accept the initial premise, which is, that I must adhere to the teachings of this one book?
nope and i think thats a great example of the who cares whatcha think idea
But back to "tolerance" ...
"Ah," you say, "but how can minds change, if not exposed to diversity of thought?" "Further," you remind me, "hatred is about fear, and fear of other people and lifestyles is based, more often than not, on ignorance borne from a lack of exposure, and inflated by contrived horror stories" and I would have to agree, but ... when repeated exposure proves to not budge person X from his/her beliefs, is there not some point where it's ... <wince> better for each to just retreat to their own corners, and call it a draw? Is "peaceful co-existence" something we want side-by-side, or more distanced, segregated, if you will?
i suppose it depends upon the people involved. honestly, i do not believe that most of those types of disagreements are related to tolerance or acceptance of others but perhaps more related to tolerance and acceptance of ourselves. if we are comfortable in our own skin and we wont be physically harmed for our thoughts or beliefs then why must we cling so tightly to the idea that what we think is the only thing to think? why is it necessary for someone else to be wrong if we are to be right? whats really in the way, the contested idea or our own self view? where it ceases to be productive, for me anyway, is when the poopyhead language comes up. thats not a sharing of differing ideas its a sh*t fest.
im listening to jon stewart and huckabee speaking about gay marriage. their conversation is...civil..tho not immediately productive. jon stewart if making points for which huckabee has no real answers. huckabee saying, for instance, that being black is not the same as someone who willingly practices the homosexual lifestye. stewart points out that in his opinion religion is more of a choice than gayness which sort of left huckabee a bit preturbed but he responded and nobody came to blows. no minds were prolly changed at that immediate moment either but thats not to say that some thinking wont occur.
when people aren't content with being told their place is at the back of the bus, and what becomes of tolerance, then, when it clashes with those who finally require and demand more? That would then mean that unlike the "separate but equal" of segregation past in this country, this time, it would have to truly be "equal" and that's difficult to implement. Further, there are so many issues which come into play (within, for instance the "homosexual" community, there'd have to be one side for the homosexuals who were Christian, and those who were not, and then, in say the "those who were not" grouping, there'd have to be the democrats on one side, and the republicans on the other, ad infinitum) that eventually, we'd all end up being "alone" which, maybe is the ultimate, and a "good" scenario, in the long run, because, when you get right down to it, isn't that what we have right now, really?
I was just sitting here, thinking about ... things which divide us, as people. The "biggies." Thinking about that and "tolerance."
First off, is "tolerance" a snobbery?
Taken purely, as "I respect your right to believe that, but I don't believe it" isn't there an inherent ... what? -- "magnanimous condescension" implied there, as well? That being, a sort of unspoken "Sure, you can believe that, but you're wrong. If you were right, I'd believe it too, but given that I don't, and that you've failed to convince me, I'm right, and you're wrong, but I'll let you be wrong" thing? And isn't really the "we'll have to agree to disagree" a stepchild of that, as well, except that it is typically a conversation closer?
I suppose a belief in "God" would be the most readily available example -- from both sides of the issue.
So what is the true nature of "tolerance," anyway? Co-existence, side-by-side of opposing beliefs, and principles, I suppose, yes? And a "respect" for ... what? What really? The other party's "right" to be... "wrong?"
I think of other options for tolerance, and come up with no acceptable alternatives, so it's not that I'm putting tolerance per se down, or anything -- I'm not, but in trying to better understand it, I find it seems that when you get right down to it, it's not so lofty a thing as it would like to appear.
Perhaps my perspective is somewhat slanted, being a lesbian person, and having that "tolerance" thing presented to me too often as some purported "gift." I guess I sort of bristle when someone is (IMO) audacious enough to proudly voice "tolerance" for me, my life, as a lesbian person. I don't want anyone's "tolerance" when it comes to my life, I guess. I wonder, now, if that means I "demand" something more -- if only "acceptance" is... "acceptable." The default final argument for NOT taking that next step from tolerance to acceptance from those who refuse to do so in re: my lesbian life, is "God" and "The Bible" which ... brings up a whole other "tolerance" thing. People who have decided "we" are "wrong" and "sinners" because we sometimes act upon our homosexual natures (rather than remaining a respectful celebant our entire lives, which, apparently, is OK, now) typically like to slam shut any conversation about our "right" to life our lives naturally, with that "The Bible says..." thing. That means, of course, homosexual people are put in the strange position of now also having to give some sort of nod to the existence of not only God, but also the "divinely inspired" book written around him and Jesus Christ.
I've often found myself in long conversations with (pardon the cliche -- I don't intend it as offensive, but it's apt) "Bible thumpers" where I've argued my ... what? "Viability" as a sexual human being (?) using that Biblical text thrown at me, and countering with my own Biblical citations.
Suddenly, this seems folly.
Its implicit assumption is that I must, in order to "defend" my life have some automatic acceptance of the Bible, and a given person's interpretation of such, as final judge when it comes to my life.
I don't. Why, then, do I even bother citing the "true" story of Sodom and Gomorrah, when I don't accept the initial premise, which is, that I must adhere to the teachings of this one book?
But back to "tolerance" ...
I've spent my whole life believing "tolerance" was about respect, when it came right down to it -- respect for the other party, who holds opposing thoughts, beliefs. Now? I'm not so sure that's accurate. What then, is a good substitute? Certainly not some mandated "acceptance" enforced by thought police. What, then? Is there anything else, between "tolerance" and "acceptance?" The other hallmark of what I consider civilized thought is the notion of "coming together" as a people, regardless. Now, with a differently positioned eye, I wonder if that's ... "advisable." I wonder if perhaps it wouldn't be better if people who strongly held different beliefs just ... stayed away from each other.
"Ah," you say, "but how can minds change, if not exposed to diversity of thought?" "Further," you remind me, "hatred is about fear, and fear of other people and lifestyles is based, more often than not, on ignorance borne from a lack of exposure, and inflated by contrived horror stories" and I would have to agree, but ... when repeated exposure proves to not budge person X from his/her beliefs, is there not some point where it's ... <wince> better for each to just retreat to their own corners, and call it a draw? Is "peaceful co-existence" something we want side-by-side, or more distanced, segregated, if you will? If so, that presumes person X agrees not to actively pursue a course intended to deny me my basic rights, and freedoms, or life -- that assumes a more "live and let live ... on the other side of town" philosophy, I suppose. Maybe, when you get right down to it, that's what "tolerance" is, hey? Comes a time, though, when people aren't content with being told their place is at the back of the bus, and what becomes of tolerance, then, when it clashes with those who finally require and demand more? That would then mean that unlike the "separate but equal" of segregation past in this country, this time, it would have to truly be "equal" and that's difficult to implement. Further, there are so many issues which come into play (within, for instance the "homosexual" community, there'd have to be one side for the homosexuals who were Christian, and those who were not, and then, in say the "those who were not" grouping, there'd have to be the democrats on one side, and the republicans on the other, ad infinitum) that eventually, we'd all end up being "alone" which, maybe is the ultimate, and a "good" scenario, in the long run, because, when you get right down to it, isn't that what we have right now, really?
The default final argument for NOT taking that next step from tolerance to acceptance from those who refuse to do so in re: my lesbian life, is "God" and "The Bible" which ... brings up a whole other "tolerance" thing. People who have decided "we" are "wrong" and "sinners" because we sometimes act upon our homosexual natures (rather than remaining a respectful celebant our entire lives, which, apparently, is OK, now) typically like to slam shut any conversation about our "right" to life our lives naturally, with that "The Bible says..." thing. That means, of course, homosexual people are put in the strange position of now also having to give some sort of nod to the existence of not only God, but also the "divinely inspired" book written around him and Jesus Christ. 