intolerance of intolerance. Is it going anywhere and where will it lead us.

[Justme]

Are people who hate people who hate others self absorbed, self righteous or self aggrandizing? Are stereotypes a means or a justification and how can these false images be refuted without the refuter defaulting to their own mental images of the types of people who use stereotypes?

In this day and age we are sometimes inundated with the term "Rights" but the precursor is always a subgroup of a group instead of the rights of an individual within the entire group to be treated equally with anyone else in that group. Is it not in the best interest of the entire group, as a whole to protect and defend anyone or any subgroup within the entirety of group lest the subgroup they're in be the next to be placed on the chopping block?

Is the simple fact that there are subgroups within society make that society vulnerable to being fractured and why would we give ear to those who claim to want save society by carving it into separate groups?

Do those who wish to lead society into a promised land actually have one in mind or is it this just an image they delude us into believing in because they know we would not personally believe in them?

When can a sanctuary become a prison? When is the idea of a higher order thinking or acting or being anything more than a palatable means of promoting arrogance? When does all this and much much more begin to create something that is a benefit to everyone?

[Devor]

Are people who hate people who hate others self absorbed, self righteous or self aggrandizing?

I'll just try to answer that one.

I think people who hate others for hating people are themselves being hateful. But I think that's an excuse, a defensive reaction. "Well, if they're going to hate me, or somebody that I like, then **** 'em." Insomuch as it's just something that's said to make you or somebody else feel better, then whatever. But insomuch as it's meant - and I think it's usually meant at least a little bit - I think it's hypocritical and unhelpful to the healing which needs to take place in society. It's cementing the division, when usually there are ways to soften and blur those barriers between groups, without necessarily even compromising the integrity of either.

I just think there's better, healthier ways.

[Kit]

Like what?

How do you react to someone like those Westboro Baptist Church evil nut jobs? They picket funerals to tell people who have lost family members in tornados, or being blown up in Iraq: "It's your own fault your child died- this is your punishment from God for being complicit in allowing homosexuals to live in this country". How do you respond to that sort of cruel, insane hatred?

[Devor]

How do you react to someone like those Westboro Baptist Church evil nut jobs? They picket funerals to tell people who have lost family members in tornados, or being blown up in Iraq: "It's your own fault your child died- this is your punishment from God for being complicit in allowing homosexuals to live in this country". How do you respond to that sort of cruel, insane hatred?

You fight hate by trying to be the sort of person who is difficult to hate. There's no other way, short of warfare - metaphorical or otherwise - but of course, warfare leads to escalation and pain and wounds before anything is ever resolved.

[Justme]

Like what?

How do you react to someone like those Westboro Baptist Church evil nut jobs? They picket funerals to tell people who have lost family members in tornado, or being blown up in Iraq: "It's your own fault your child died- this is your punishment from God for being complicit in allowing homosexuals to live in this country". How do you respond to that sort of cruel, insane hatred?

The best way I've found to fight hatred is to not offer it an audience. The true power of any ideal, good, bad or ugly is the amount of people who embrace it. The media gives the Westboro Baptist Church it's sting and they suck it up like milk. What I'd like to see is an entire town come out to one of their protests. Lock arms and as a human wall just slowly walk into them and calmly remove them from wherever they are congregating. There would be no fists, so there will be no assualt, but they would be removed all the same.

What I think would be funny as heck is if they brought in some people dressed in Catholic preachers garb to do exorcisms on the WBC members who are protesting. I'd love to see their faces when someone was trying to pull the demons from out of them.

[Jabrosky]

Are people who hate people who hate others self absorbed, self righteous or self aggrandizing?

Yeah, because considering racism, sexism, homophobia, religious fanaticism, authoritarianism, and other wingnut values morally repugnant is something decent people should be ashamed of.

EDIT: I replaced "conservative" with "wingnut" because of course not everyone who identifies as politically conservative is evil. My bad.

[Kit]

You fight hate by trying to be the sort of person who is difficult to hate.

I would think a parent at their kid's funeral would be a little hard to hate, but apparently not for those wingnuts.

And if you're gay, apparently that makes it much easier for a lot of people to hate you. One can't stop being gay- or black, or Muslim, or whatever- just because it draws the hate of others. Some people will always find a "reason" to hate you.

[Ophiucha]

Depends. I think it's naive to think all problems can be solved with politeness. And I think it is wrong to expect it from someone who is hated. I mean, sincerely, hated. It's easy to say "put on a smile" when you just see a scumbag group like the WBC. If you've never been targeted by them, it's easy to dismiss them as scum and walk away, laugh about it, ignore it. But if you're the object of hate - for your sexuality, your gender, the colour of your skin - then you have every right to hate back, in my opinion. If you're the mother of a gay boy who's been killed in a hate crime, and there are a bunch of people saying he's going to hell or whatever else, then yeah, you should hate them right back.

It's a nice idea, to think that we're all already equal, and that these groups are fringe groups we should ignore for the sake of holding hands and being friends. And while groups like the WBC and their equivalents are fringe, their ideas aren't. One day, maybe there won't be divisions. Maybe then hating the hateful will be pointless. But right now? It's a defence mechanism. If women don't learn to hate every man who thinks it's okay to take away our health care, we're going to lose it. Sitting back and politely requesting that they don't simply doesn't work, not in the grand scheme of things. It might pass a law or two, but successful social change needs somebody with a loud voice and, unfortunately, often a bit more than that.

Even if that weren't the case... we're human. How many times can you listen to somebody say they hate you, that what you do is sinful, that what you are is disgusting and vile, before you think the same of them? In that kind of situation, it's hate them or hate yourself.

[Chilari]

I don't think the "I'm gonna love and tolerate the **** out of you" approach is one which necessarily works all the time, or even most of the time. It makes the behaviour of the intolerant appear more acceptable if their behaviour is tolerated even by a small group. One cannot simply say to people like the WBC that we're not going to hate them, because what message does that give the fence-sitters, when one side of the argument are vocal and confrontational and the other side are passive, non-confrontaional and tolerant. The vocal side will get the most attention - which is what groups like the WBC want. Failing to protest doesn't stop them getting attention, it only removes the balance. The only way to remove bigotry from society is to demonstrate that it is unacceptable and force those who practice bigotted behaviour to question it and disassociate themselves with it lest they be ostracised.

Obviously going too far in the other direction cannot be healthy either; assuming that one member of a group holds identical views to the rest of the group simply because they belong to that group is not healthy, and in fact a feature of bigotry and prejudice. The trick, I think, is not to direct hate at the individuals, but at the views they hold - to say that homophobia is unwelcome rather than the WBC, for example. If that makes sense. Because then those part of that group are shown that it is not them, personally, that we react to, but the views they hold, and therefore they may ultimately come to a point where those views are abandoned. When a group is villified, rather than their views, it seems more likely their reaction will be to stick together more, to think "if they're going to hate us anyway, why stop?" But when it is clear that it is not membership of the group but the views of the group which is hated, for social acceptance if nothing else there is the chance an individual might abandon those views.

Does that make sense?

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I don't really think a lot of moral justification is needed to despise bigots. Generally, it might be more productive to try and approach it like a sociological problem and help those people instead of shunning/scorning them (if the bigots feel "oppressed" then they'll get all defensive and be even less likely to let go of their prejudices), but that's really hard to do when such strong emotions are involved.