I said that it is noble and righteous to be intolerant of Oppression.
If someone is merely intolerant of, for instance, University of Kentucky fans and doesn't want them in their house, that's a rather silly little intolerance and I can tolerate that.
If, on the other hand, someone is intolerant of gay folk or black folk or Christian folk or Muslim Folk... And they say "you can't be these things... we will put you in jail if you are these things..." then it is moral, reasonable, and prudent to be intolerant of that sort of oppressive intolerance.
There is a range of things that might be not tolerated and not all intolerances are equal.
Hopefully, you would agree that is moral and reasonable to be highly intolerant of intolerance towards a certain religion and other oppressive intolerances.
It’s the new leftist paradigm. Intolerance is bad, until we decide it’s good. Violence is bad, unless we decide you deserve it. Obstruction is bad, until we’re out of power. Accuracy and sources in news reporting is vital, until it’s about Kavanaugh.
The other side, Craig, is that if you do not hold that intolerance is always bad, then when you are intolerant it is not a double standard. But then you have to decide in which cases intolerance isn't bad.
I completely agree, but since we live in a society where tolerance has been raised to the highest possible virtue, and re-defined to mean celebration and encouragement, we are left with a double standard. What we see too often in our current society call is that different standards are applied different ways to different people.
8 comments:
Dan,
My apologies, I accidentally deleted your comment. Please feel free to re submit.
True, and you know the "double standard" crowd will disagree. I just want to know who said it. (It's in quotes.)
I said that it is noble and righteous to be intolerant of Oppression.
If someone is merely intolerant of, for instance, University of Kentucky fans and doesn't want them in their house, that's a rather silly little intolerance and I can tolerate that.
If, on the other hand, someone is intolerant of gay folk or black folk or Christian folk or Muslim Folk... And they say "you can't be these things... we will put you in jail if you are these things..." then it is moral, reasonable, and prudent to be intolerant of that sort of oppressive intolerance.
There is a range of things that might be not tolerated and not all intolerances are equal.
Hopefully, you would agree that is moral and reasonable to be highly intolerant of intolerance towards a certain religion and other oppressive intolerances.
So you agree with the quote. You’re just arguing that sometimes intolerance is OK. It just depends on who you decide is worthy of intolerance.
“BTW--I define tolerance as being able to completely disapprove of what you say but defending your right to say it and even caring for you anyway.”
Stan,
It’s the new leftist paradigm. Intolerance is bad, until we decide it’s good. Violence is bad, unless we decide you deserve it. Obstruction is bad, until we’re out of power. Accuracy and sources in news reporting is vital, until it’s about Kavanaugh.
The other side, Craig, is that if you do not hold that intolerance is always bad, then when you are intolerant it is not a double standard. But then you have to decide in which cases intolerance isn't bad.
I completely agree, but since we live in a society where tolerance has been raised to the highest possible virtue, and re-defined to mean celebration and encouragement, we are left with a double standard. What we see too often in our current society call is that different standards are applied different ways to different people.
Post a Comment