Taller ants
I agree with Liberal Seagull's last post (big surprise).
I want to add only that I really don't feel like I need to entertain allegations of "intolerance" from people who are not only themselves highly intolerant, but are accusing me of intolerance specifically for objecting to their intolerant views.
If you're at all outspokenly liberal, you know the argument I mean: "So you're unwilling to tolerate my belief that gay people should be beaten to death with sticks? So much for your liberal tolerance!"
Let's be abundantly clear, here. Saying that you think someone is wrong, even objectively wrong, even catastrophically wrong, is not in and of itself an act of bigotry. It may be "intolerance" by the dictionary definition of the word. Merriam-Webster's first definition for the word "intolerant" is, in fact, "unable or unwilling to endure." I would say that I am unable or unwilling to endure the notion that some members of society, who are doing no harm, should be denied the same rights everyone else enjoys simply because a loaded interpretation of a bronze-age religious text says they should be according to some people.
But the second definition offered there is A: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters; B: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED." And I think, when people throw around the word "intolerant" in political discussions, this is the operative definition.
So, the argument conservatives who call argumentative liberals like myself "intolerant" are making is, in essence, "you're guilty of not believing in equality, because you refuse to regard my belief in inequality as being just as valid as your belief in equality."
To accept that, you must accept, logically, that believing in equality means believing that it's just as legitimate not to believe in equality. That logic rapidly disappears up its own butt and never re-emerges.
I'm going to continue to believe that being a bigot is, logically and morally, inferior to not being one. And I am never going to apologize for thinking that.
I want to add only that I really don't feel like I need to entertain allegations of "intolerance" from people who are not only themselves highly intolerant, but are accusing me of intolerance specifically for objecting to their intolerant views.
If you're at all outspokenly liberal, you know the argument I mean: "So you're unwilling to tolerate my belief that gay people should be beaten to death with sticks? So much for your liberal tolerance!"
Let's be abundantly clear, here. Saying that you think someone is wrong, even objectively wrong, even catastrophically wrong, is not in and of itself an act of bigotry. It may be "intolerance" by the dictionary definition of the word. Merriam-Webster's first definition for the word "intolerant" is, in fact, "unable or unwilling to endure." I would say that I am unable or unwilling to endure the notion that some members of society, who are doing no harm, should be denied the same rights everyone else enjoys simply because a loaded interpretation of a bronze-age religious text says they should be according to some people.
But the second definition offered there is A: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters; B: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED." And I think, when people throw around the word "intolerant" in political discussions, this is the operative definition.
So, the argument conservatives who call argumentative liberals like myself "intolerant" are making is, in essence, "you're guilty of not believing in equality, because you refuse to regard my belief in inequality as being just as valid as your belief in equality."
To accept that, you must accept, logically, that believing in equality means believing that it's just as legitimate not to believe in equality. That logic rapidly disappears up its own butt and never re-emerges.
I'm going to continue to believe that being a bigot is, logically and morally, inferior to not being one. And I am never going to apologize for thinking that.
<< Home