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



## Justme (May 28, 2012)

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 (May 28, 2012)

Justme said:


> 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 (May 28, 2012)

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 (May 28, 2012)

Kit said:


> 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 (May 28, 2012)

Kit said:


> 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 (May 28, 2012)

Justme said:


> 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 (May 28, 2012)

Devor said:


> 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 (May 29, 2012)

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 (May 29, 2012)

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 (May 29, 2012)

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.


----------



## Devor (May 29, 2012)

Dumping hate on the people who disagree with you, just because they did it first, only works a little if you've got the most hate to dump - it escalates and antagonizes and stirs up the pot until all parties end up at least a little burned, and the results have nothing to do with whether your particular position was the "right" one.  There are better ways.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 29, 2012)

A funny thing on bigotry... one of my coworkers (I teach at a high school) told a student how people are surprised that her oldest child is 7. She's my about age (~40), but she and the students figured that "everyone" assumed she would be 15 years older than her first kid because she's Puerto Rican. The students were Puerto Rican, too, and said, "You know how we Hispanics are... having kids at six years old."

The reality is that bigotry exists and the students here feel it. They're used to their culture being used as a statistic, and this town does have a high teen pregnancy rate, so there is a true story behind the statistic.

In any case, I thought the way they were joking about it was a healthy way to deal with an ugliness. The word "discrimination" came up on this week's vocabulary list, so my students and I talked about this conversation which we overheard.

I don't have the answer to stopping bigots from being bigots. I thought what my coworker and her students did was a great way to keep bigotry from affecting them.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 29, 2012)

In every group there will be people worth knowing and others who are merely wastes of air and water. What can I say?  I am probably a hater, but it has nothing to do with skin color or sexual orientation but personal selfishness and sense of entitlement.


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2012)

Often the self-proclaimed most tolerant are the most hateful and intolerant. As a rule, even though I'm very liberal on political social issues, I find my fellow liberals to be a lot more mean-spirited and hateful than the conservatives. Not sure why that is. You can point out certain idiot groups, of course, like Westboro, but on the whole I find the rhetoric of the left far more nasty, and that's rather embarrassing much of the time.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 29, 2012)

I hear you there, Steerpike. A coworker and I were talking about the typical intellectuals you meet in the world of education. So many live privileged lives and claim to understand inner city kids, minorities, etc.

I know what the statistics are in my district... I just don't care. I relate to my students because I treat them as individuals and with dignity. (Even when breaking up fights--ten this year!)


----------



## Jabrosky (May 29, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> As a rule, even though I'm very liberal on political social issues, I find my fellow liberals to be a lot more mean-spirited and hateful than the conservatives.


I've had the opposite experience. Conservatives are the most immature, xenophobic, anti-intellectual, and volatile brutes I have ever encountered. I've never seen a liberal equivalent to the popular conservative charge that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Black Supremacist Communist. Yes, some liberals were guilty of hyperbole when they likened Bush to Hitler, but at least their attacks against him were rooted in his actions rather than his ethnicity, which is more than can be said for the conservative jihad against Obama.

I've also never seen a liberal equivalent to this:








Right Wing Stuff Bumps Off Liberal Enemies


----------



## Steerpike (May 29, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> I've had the opposite experience. Conservatives are the most immature, xenophobic, anti-intellectual, and volatile brutes I have ever encountered.



You probably don't know many conservatives, Jabrosky. One of the smartest, kindest, and most highly intellectual (and educated) people I know is ultra conservative.

In furtherance of my earlier point, you are a liberal (apparently) and your post is probably the most insulting post in the thread. That's precisely the sort of thing I was getting at. I don't see other posts with that same amount of name-calling and so on, do you? You are reducing people to caricatures, and caricatures are always easy to attack. 

Fact is, there are nuts on either side. Most reasonable people can respect and get along just fine with people of other political persuasions. But for some reason, my liberal friends have a lot harder time doing to and being cordial than my conservative friends. I'm not talking about finding nuts on the internet, or general statements of what the crazies on one side or the other might say. I'm talking about actual personal experience with people I know and interact with in day to day life.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 30, 2012)

Sorry Steerpike, but I'm siding with Jabrosky on this one. Are their hateful liberals? Of course there are. But by and large they hate people for who they are, not _what _they are. Every liberal I know who is full of hate directs that hate towards racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, and the sorts of people who think universal healthcare is socialism. Which is a damn site better than being a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, fascist asshole, which is what most of the hateful conservative individuals tend to be.

As for who speaks louder, maybe in personal situations the liberals won't shut up, but it doesn't take five minutes of watching the news to see which side speaks the loudest when it matters. There is no liberal equivalent to abortion clinic bombers. There's no liberal equivalent to the WBC. There's no liberal equivalent to the KKK. Not on the same scale, not with the same history, not with the same media attention, and in some cases, simply not at all. 

And while there certainly are racist liberals, and there are LGBT-friendly conservatives, the fact is that the parties have specific policies relating to these issues. Conservative agenda is in favour of stricter immigration, they're against policies to help minorities get jobs and get paid fairly at those jobs, they're against abortion, they're against gay marriage. There are more people who are conservative that are also RSHT than there are liberals because, otherwise, why would they vote the way they do? And frankly, some forms of hate are objectively worse than others.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

I disagree again, and as I said I am basing this on personal interactions with people, not on what fringe groups do. Again, the most "hateful" rhetoric in this very thread is coming from liberals. It is dressed up in self-righteous indignation, by which excuse liberals think they can be exactly like those they despise and get away with it. I reject the notion.


----------



## Kit (May 30, 2012)

Ophiucha said sort of what I was going to say.

 I usually save my hate not for people who simply DISAGREE with me (everyone's entitled to their opinion), but for people who feel that certain others should not be allowed to exist- and ACT upon it.  

For me, the line is when you (generic "you") transfer thought to action: you bring your opinions out of your own small head and little closed world and start trying to IMPOSE them upon me and upon others (and that includes your impressionable and helpless children... it makes me crazy to see four-year-olds dressed up in Klan robes, and carrying "abortion doctors are going to burn in hell" signs at rallies).


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

@Kit I think I agree more or less where the line should be drawn. I don't hate anyone that I know, regardless of political persuasion. I might disagree quite seriously with their viewpoint, but as far as I'm concerned they are entitled to it. They are not entitled to compel my by law to adopt their view, but if they want to try to persuade me with argument, then fine.

But really, my point is just from my own personal experience. I have a lot of liberal and conservative friends - Dems, GOPers, Socialists, Libertarians, and so on. I also have a lot of acquaintances and coworkers in those general categories. If I were to think of the people who are the most downright hateful and nasty in their rhetoric, of the people I know, they are almost all left-wingers. None of my close friends are that way, because I won't be close friends with anyone who behaves like that.

Of the two most intelligent, educated, and kind people I know (both of whom are Ph.Ds and would do anything for a stranger on the streets), one is well to the right of the most conservative politician or personalities out there, and the other is a self-described socialist. Given that, I can reject out of hand any characterization of either side as being ignorant, stupid, idiotic, moronic, dim, or whatever other ad hom people want to throw out there. I know better. The fact that there are many intelligent, reasonable people across the political spectrum tells me reasonable people can differ on the issues that occupy our political discourse. It's the loud and belligerent people on both sides, who can't accept the possibility of rational, intelligent thought on the other, that you have to watch for, in my view.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (May 30, 2012)

Can I disagree with all of you?  At least in the last couple posts at any rate.  (Hard for me to ever disagree with Sidekick up there ).  Why label conservatives and liberals differently?  Bigots are bigots are bigots, right?  And Jabroski, there are plenty on the liberal side of the fence.   It has gotten to the point where it just sounds like some bs outdated propaganda to say that all bigots are conservative.  It is a little bit ridiculous.  (S***, my location says Georgia, doesn't it?  I _must_ be ultra-conservative.)  And there are certainly some on the conservative side.  However, disliking someone because of their political beliefs is the one of the most juvenile things you could do.  For that matter, I'm not a fan of aligning yourself with a party, but I'll avoid that conversation so my head stays away from the chopping block.

EDIT: By last couple posts, I really meant those before Kit- took me awhile to say that stuff.

...and, after Steerpike's last post, I think I'm down to just disagreeing with the other two.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

@Elder - yes, I think that is it exactly. Bigots and intolerant people are on both sides. They're the same on both sides. And, really, both sides tend to excuse it among those they agree with. I agree entirely that disliking someone solely based on differing political views is generally juvenile, and it seems to me that is often stems from an insecurity of belief that won't tolerate any challenge or exchange of different ideas. Many people stay well away from political view points that differ from their own. They'll associate with like-minded people, refrain from reading or listening to viewpoints from people who think differently. It is all an echo chamber, and in the end that's not a good way to develop one's own views. 

I'm talking about reasonable people on both sides, of course. You have groups like Westboro, or groups like ELF, where I think it is reasonable to dislike them and their tactics. But really, our political system is plagued by excuse-making for whatever group we like. One hasn't to look very far, for example, to see corruption rife among some members of both political parties in the U.S., and yet if you are a Democrat chances are you'll excuse it among Democrats, and likewise if you are a Republican, and then maintain in your own mind the viewpoint that somehow your chosen group in Washington is better than the other. It is mind-boggling, really. We can't deal with individuals anymore. Like I said above, we just deal in caricatures, because that's simple.

EDIT: GA is a beautiful State, by the way. I have family there and lived there until 4th grade, and we headed west


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (May 30, 2012)

Agreed.



Steerpike said:


> EDIT: GA is a beautiful State, by the way. I have family there and lived there until 4th grade, and we headed west



Thanks, I like it here for the most part.  Gets a bit boring every once in a while, though.  What part did you live in?


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

NE Georgia. Do you know where Cornelia is?


----------



## Ophiucha (May 30, 2012)

I don't disagree that there are bigots and hateful people on the left. Lord knows I know a few. Hell, my husband can use a kick in the shin at dinner parties from time to time. I _know_ they exist, but... lord, this is going to derail us dreadfully, but in for a penny, in for a pound...

I have conservative friends. People who I have shared interests with outside of politics. We both like a certain show, or a certain game. They are very nice people, all in all. I've had many a good D&D session with them. _But_, no matter how kind, I simply can't see how you can be a conservative and not have some hateful beliefs, even if they are not rooted in any personal hatred. What are the conservative policies?

Pro-life, which is anti-woman. Anti-immigration, which is [email protected] Anti-affirmative action, which is anti-all minority races, though particularly blacks. Pro-death penalty, which is literally a POV you can only have if you are capable of hating someone. Anti-gay marriage, pretty obviously anti-gay. Against pretty much everything that would decrease the boundaries between the rich and the poor, be that in health care, education, or way of life - anti-black, in particular. The simple fact is that most rich people are white and there are a lot more poor black and [email protected] families than there are white ones (and the white ones often live in different neighbourhoods than the minority ones). Pro-guns, another policy I can't imagine supporting without hatred in your heart. Also, has a direct effect on crime in Mexico. Same with anti-drug policies. Their policies on homeland security - anti-Muslim/Arab. Pro-war on terror, mostly rooted in greed and misconceptions, but lord know it's caused a mean streak in the anti-Muslim/Arab department, as well.

Honestly, the only conservative policy that isn't bigoted or easily tied to race is their stance on global warming. That doesn't mean you are hateful, or even necessarily aware of the hatefulness behind the policies you support. Some of them are more institutionalized than personal. But if you vote conservative, you are still voting for hateful, bigoted policies. _Invariably._ And frankly staying quiet about it doesn't make you in much better than the fringe parts of the demographic who make their views known. What few groups of liberal nuts we have are well and truly nuts. Eco-terrorists and PETA, mainly. They are leftist, but they aren't preaching _the actual policies our elected officials are voting in_. Even the sweetest conservatives, however, are voting to ban gay marriage and profile Muslims in every airport every time they vote to lower taxes or whatever it is they vote conservative for.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

Ophiucha said:


> Pro-life, which is anti-woman. Anti-immigration, which is [email protected] Anti-affirmative action, which is anti-all minority races, though particularly blacks. Pro-death penalty, which is literally a POV you can only have if you are capable of hating someone. Anti-gay marriage, pretty obviously anti-gay. Against pretty much everything that would decrease the boundaries between the rich and the poor, be that in health care, education, or way of life - anti-black, in particular. The simple fact is that most rich people are white and there are a lot more poor black and [email protected] families than there are white ones (and the white ones often live in different neighbourhoods than the minority ones). Pro-guns, another policy I can't imagine supporting without hatred in your heart. Also, has a direct effect on crime in Mexico. Same with anti-drug policies. Their policies on homeland security - anti-Muslim/Arab. Pro-war on terror, mostly rooted in greed and misconceptions, but lord know it's caused a mean streak in the anti-Muslim/Arab department, as well.



Well, without getting even further afield, unless we really want to, I can't say I agree with anything you've written here. These are all caricatures. They're convenient ways of framing the issues to set up a moral high ground (and a few of them are patently ridiculous, in my view). Conservatives, of course, do the exact same thing in the opposite direction. The fact that you actually believe what you've written here really underscores in my mind how people become so fixed in their own view of the world that they can't even conceive of opposing rational viewpoints and have to throw these characterizations out there. As someone who is pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-capital punishment, and on the liberal side of every issue you posted here (except gun rights), all I can say is this post makes me sad.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

I should note, by the way, that I know women who are pro-life, gay people who don't support gay marriage, blacks and other minorities who don't support affirmative action, mexicans who favor a border fence, and so on.

Of course, the easy (and dismissive) answer is that they're somehow self-hating, or deluded, or (insert ad hom here), but the truth is much more complicated than that. The truth is that reasonable people who aren't hateful can differ on these issues. The people who can't see that tend to be more on the hateful side of things because they've successfully dehumanized those with opposing views in their own mind, like you've done in your own post. As writers, I find it particularly troubling that we can't mentally process these views as they really exist, and are capable of seeing them only in terms of hate.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 30, 2012)

I don't doubt that they are in favour of these things for unrelated reasons. Few people are voting against abortion because they hate women - they're doing it for the moral high ground of pro-fetus. But the fact that the policy is, objectively, anti-woman, is what matters. Nearly all conservative policies are rooted in sexism, homophobia, and racism, and regardless of _why _you vote for them, you are still voting for them. Further, some of these _are_ blatantly racist or homophobic. If you vote for a conservative politician, even if you are gay yourself, you're voting against gay marriage. And I truly couldn't think of a reason unrelated to racism to be against Affirmative Action.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (May 30, 2012)

Ophiucha said:


> I don't doubt that they are in favour of these things for unrelated reasons. Few people are voting against abortion because they hate women - they're doing it for the moral high ground of pro-fetus. But the fact that the policy is, objectively, anti-woman, is what matters. Nearly all conservative policies are rooted in sexism, homophobia, and racism, and regardless of _why _you vote for them, you are still voting for them. Further, some of these _are_ blatantly racist or homophobic. If you vote for a conservative politician, even if you are gay yourself, you're voting against gay marriage. And I truly couldn't think of a reason unrelated to racism to be against Affirmative Action.



This is entirely opinion based.  Affirmative Action?  That's the easiest thing in the world for me to think of reasons to be against.  And none of them are racist.  People that I know who are against affirmative action believe that every single job should be given to the person that is most capable to do that job.  A promotion should be given to the person who has worked the hardest or has the most skill at that job.  Affirmative action, however, states that this job should be given to a person based on skin tone rather than skill.  Which one is racist?  For the record, I'm not voting against any of this stuff, but youre argument is not in any way grounded in facts.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

So black people who oppose affirmative action are self-hating racists against their own kind, I suppose? That's convenient, but on these sorts of issues convenient answers are rarely the right ones. 

The fact that your own posts here are inherently hateful seems to be lost somehow. It is just this sort of thinking on either side that is at the root of bigotry, in my view. Except for being on the opposite side of the issues, you don't sound much different than a truly bigoted right-winger. Is that supposed to be an enlightened way of looking at the world, simply because you're on the left-wing side of the various issues? I'm sure that's not the intent behind it, but if your argument is the right one, then the intent doesn't matter.

And all of these left-wing groups push social policy just like the right-wing groups do, by the way. The trick is to find the right balance so that the reasonable people on either side aren't being dictated to, under the law, by the fanatics on the other side.

Anyway, I'll simply say that this is precisely the sort of thing that is at the root of the problem in our political system in the US. It might be different in Canada, I don't know. Being polarized to the point that you can't even think of the human beings on the other side of issues in terms other than those you've expressed is really foreign to me.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 30, 2012)

Misconceptions about affirmative action could take another page of this thread entirely, so I'm just letting that one drop.

I'll defer to my point in my first post: some forms of hatred are worse than others. I can't look at a society that still perpetuates homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, and racism and sit back quietly and talk politely about the issues. If you honestly think that it's just as bad to be bigoted against homophobes as it is to _be _homophobic, then more power to you.


----------



## Justme (May 30, 2012)

I'm beginning to really dislike the term hatred. It seems to be the default term thrown out by those who can't justify their ideology. I equally grow increasingly weary of the use of phobias to belittle those who oppose the agendas of one side or the other. This  is a great example of intolerance, sense it is used against the person and not the issue. To me it is a sign of weakness.  It merely tries to shove other peoples arguements  under the rug, instead of dealing with them. The "Your views are invade because you're a hater" stance is an ad hominem attack and pretty much a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## Kit (May 30, 2012)

Ophiucha said:


> Pro-guns, another policy I can't imagine supporting without hatred in your heart. .



I'm pretty liberal, but this is one of the points where I always find myself sitting in a circle of glares when it comes up in a group of liberal friends. I am a pro-gun liberal! (Do I get a cool t-shirt for that?)

Violent criminals are pro-gun because- well. Do I even need to expound? 

 Those of us who are *not* violent criminals and are pro-gun just want to know that we can protect ourselves and our families when the bad guys with the guns show up.

Gun laws are never going to get guns out of the hands of the criminals. Criminals do not follow laws. That's what makes them criminals. The only thing that gun laws do is take guns out of the hands of the good guys, so that when the gun-toting law-ignoring criminals show up, we can't do anything but lie down and die for them like a bunch of sheep.

If I want a gun so that I can shoot some criminal who is trying to rape me or kill my kid, I don't agree that that's about hate per se. It's just about survival. It can be viewed in a totally practical and unemotional way. 


Hey, look at us. Four pages, and we're still being pretty civil with this discussion.  :Cool:


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 30, 2012)

Ophiucha said:


> Pro-life, which is anti-woman


Does this make my wife anti-woman?



Spoiler: how pro-lifers really think, if you're curious



If you're interested in hearing the mindset of a pro-life couple, I can share a story about why my wife and I are very strongly opposed to abortion. It has to do with a doctor's recommendation for our first born, which was to abort her because she would be deformed, dwarfed and retarded. Being morally opposed to abortion, we ignored this advice and never went to that doctor again. Our daughter is highly intelligent, and she's the tallest in her preschool class.

Regretfully, friends of ours decided to abort their twins (who had the same due date as our first born) because there was a 10-15% chance that one or both would die during the pregnancy. Logically, it would have been better to do nothing. To do nothing would have meant a 15% chance of a death or two. To abort made it a 100% chance of two deaths and having to bear the responsibility of that decision. The couple chose to abort out of fear.

My wife and I chose not to abort out of logic and out of love. We don't regret our choice, and wouldn't have even if the doctor had been correct. I wish I could say the same for our friends. They've been carrying that weight for five years.


Abortion really is a hot issue. I hope that those of you who read this will simply see this as one couple's point of view. I'm not trying to persuade, but simply show that there can be a sincere reason to be pro-life. If you wish to discuss, please PM me.



I don't want to get into politics here, but it's blanket statements like "if you're against gay marriage, you're a homophobe" that keep people polarized. I actually do try to understand the valid points on both sides of every issue.



Spoiler: the one issue in which I lean left



I tend to be conservative, but I'm PRO-gay marriage. Why? I have no stake in this issue. I'm not gay, so I have to look at why each side has its position.

My parents: conservative Catholics who look at any non-Catholic marriage as being no different than living together. Therefore, it shouldn't matter to "the religious right" whether gay people marry with a JOP. The Church will never change its stance.

Secular conservatives: "the definition of a marriage is a union between one man and one woman." Well... okay. Easy to say if you're straight. But considering the divorce rate, I'd say there are more heterosexuals that go against MY definition of a marriage, which is "a _permanent _union." So I figure MY definition of marriage should simply define MY marriage.

Gay people: I heard a story of a gay lover not being able to visit his dying partner in the hopsital because he wasn't family. That one story was enough to convince me that civil unions aren't an acceptable compromise.

What's the harm?: a question I ask of any issue (which usually causes me to lean right). In the case of gay marriage, I don't see the harm. The best anti-gay marriage argument is that children need both a mother and a father. Okay... but children who are up for adoption don't always make it into a stable home. I know a guy who bounced from one foster home to another. How much harm did those heterosexual couples do to him, especially the one that kept his sister and sent him away? I also have a lesbian coworker whose wife gave birth last month. Gay marriage or not, she would still be artifically inseminated, so no constitutional amendment is going to prevent a kid from having two mommies.

Rather than make a habit of demonizing liberals and assuming they're wrong about everything, I consistently and sincerely look at both sides of an issue. In this case, the result was that I very uncharacteristically leaned left.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 30, 2012)

Kit said:


> I am a pro-gun liberal! (Do I get a cool t-shirt for that?)


You should.


----------



## Jabrosky (May 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> So black people who oppose affirmative action are self-hating racists against their own kind, I suppose?



I've actually heard black people say they hated other black people, even going so far as to use racist slurs like the n-word, more than once. Sorry, but I do not buy that it is impossible to disown yourself from your own race.

And as for your claims about liberals being more intolerant than conservatives based on your experience, do you know what anecdotal data is?


----------



## Justme (May 30, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> I've actually heard black people say they hated other black people, even going so far as to use racist slurs like the n-word, more than once. Sorry, but I do not buy that it is impossible to disown yourself from your own race.
> 
> And as for your claims about liberals being more intolerant than conservatives based on your experience, do you know what anecdotal data is?



Is this because of the the person or persons they were talking about was black or because what that person or persons were acting like or had done? I've lived around black people al my life and they casually use the N-word in conversations?


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> And as for your claims about liberals being more intolerant than conservatives based on your experience, do you know what anecdotal data is?



Yes. I thought it was clear to everyone that I was using anecdotal data, which is why I clearly stated I was speaking based on my own personal experience. Other people seem to have grasped that more quickly.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

@Legendary

You and I probably differ on most issues. Looks like we both support gay marriage and gun rights, and apart from that I expect we're pretty far apart on social issues. I'm to the left of a lot of my liberal friends on some social issues, so there may no be much overlap there.

Nevertheless, I can comfortably say that I've never seen any evidence from anything you've said or done in these forums that you are a hateful person. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yet it has been proposed in this thread that you are inherently a hateful person merely by virtue of your beliefs. This viewpoint ignores your individuality and autonomy as an individual and casts broad characterizations upon you merely on your association with a given group of people. That seems to me to be the very definition of bigotry.

This latest exchange started with my own personal observation that of the many people I know across the political spectrum, the few who are most hateful tend to be liberal (and that's only a small subset of the liberals I know, but they are nevertheless worse than the conservatives I know). Although a thread like this represents merely additional anecdotal evidence, I have to say that I am saddened, but entirely unsurprised, that the hateful rhetoric in this very thread comes from the leftwingers.

Q.E.D.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

Justme said:


> I'm beginning to really dislike the term hatred. It seems to be the default term thrown out by those who can't justify their ideology. I equally grow increasingly weary of the use of phobias to belittle those who oppose the agendas of one side or the other. This  is a great example of intolerance, sense it is used against the person and not the issue. To me it is a sign of weakness.  It merely tries to shove other peoples arguements  under the rug, instead of dealing with them. The "Your views are invade because you're a hater" stance is an ad hominem attack and pretty much a waste of everyone's time.



You're right.

I think it is intellectual laziness (or ignorance) and ultimately comes down to dehumanizing someone who disagrees to the point of being a caricature, as I noted above. I find that people who do this tend to have limited exposure to diverse range of viewpoints. They surround themselves with people, media, and the like that put forth a viewpoint they already agree with. Insulating oneself is easier than thinking.


----------



## Justme (May 30, 2012)

I really don't think Liberals are more intolerant than conservatives. I think the term Idealistic is closer to the mark. At first the term Idealistic sounds like a positive thing, but consider that ideals are mindsets that need not reflect the real world. They are every bit as real to the idealist as Christianity is to the religious and to refute an ideologues ideals is to assault the fabric that holds their world together.

*NOTE:  The left has no monopoly on ideologues any more than they have on intellectuals, but ideologues are the fertile ground where springs the most destructive individuals on the planet. *


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> ...ignores your individuality and autonomy as an individual and casts broad characterizations upon you merely on your association with a given group of people. That seems to me to be the very definition of bigotry.


Very well put!

That's what I was talking about when I referred to some of the decision-makers in academic world. I cringe every time I hear someone white and well-off telling me how s/he "understands" my students who are poor and Hispanic. I always want to say, no you don't understand them. You only understand that they're poor and Hispanic!

I realize your point was about the hatemongers on both sides, but I feel that there's another form of bigotry that comes from well-intentioned individuals. It's a sort of class/race-based pity which ignores the individuality of anyone in a given class/race. The danger is that people (with authority) say, "Well... you're students can't handle that. They're... different."


----------



## Justme (May 30, 2012)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I cringe every time I hear someone white and well-off telling me how s/he "understands" my students who are poor and Hispanic.



These people just want to feel good about themselves What is a concern is the what atmousphere has created the need for people to make statements as ridiculous as these. 



> I realize your point was about the hatemongers on both sides, but I feel that there's another form of bigotry that comes from well-intentioned individuals. It's a sort of class/race-based pity which ignores the individuality of anyone in a given class/race. The danger is that people (with authority) say, "Well... you're students can't handle that. They're... different."



The mindset that somethings are beyond a certain groups grasp seems to me to be a setup for giving that giving that group the idea that they need outside help which usually means help by the very people who made the original statement. It's creating victims instead of empowering them to succeed.


----------



## Black Dragon (May 30, 2012)

Friends,

Please be very careful when discussing this subject.  It's all too easy to make blanket generalizations about the motivations of those whom you disagree with.  

If this discussion is to continue, I would suggest *making a sincere effort to understand the other side*, and not to automatically judge the opposing perspective.

Also, please remember our guidelines:



> When discussing sensitive topics such as religion and politics, special  care must be taken.  Such discussions must be conducted in a spirit of  mutual respect and genuine inquiry.



Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 30, 2012)

I just want to mention there's a difference between being pro-choice and HAVING an abortion.  With my first pregnancy, I had a miscarriage at 8 weeks and elected to have a D&C because waiting at home was too horrific to imagine at the time.  That being said, I would not choose to abort a child that was healthy and born out of love.  BUT, there's loads of women who aren't as lucky as I am.  They have children they don't want or give up to foster care because their relationships are abusive, broken, or nonexistent.  If history shows us anything, it's that women will practically kill themselves in an attempt to do away with an unwanted pregnancy, and though that fact makes me very sad personally, shouldn't they be allowed to do it in a clinic with proper medical care?  

Also, as someone who has worked with disabled children and seen the effects on their parents, I can only say that it is a life some people cannot handle and a large number of those poor children end up in state care.  What kind of life is that for them?  Most people look upon abortion as a selfish act, but can it not also be considered selfless?  How about the children who ARE born with so many problems because their parents could not make the hard choice?  Does any six-month old deserve to have multiple brain surgeries only to die weeks later?  Is that not the epitome of cruelty?  Nature would have most likely terminated the pregnancy anyways, and if not through miscarriage or still-birth (both of which are very hard to deal with first-hand) the child would only live a few days without say, half their brain or missing their spleen or liver or with deformed lungs and heart.  Nature itself is cruel and we cannot fix every problem.  

@ Sidekick.  I'm overjoyed that your situation turned out to be a false call.  I feel pretty comfortable making decisions regarding babies now, but with the first, it's always very scary.  I'm glad your daughter foiled the doctor, and that you got a second opinion.  Some medical professionals are less than professional and tests can be wrong (which is why I rarely do those tests.  In fact, with my third, I didn't even get an ultrasound at all.  I also deny the glucose tests and genetic testing).  Every parent wants to give their child the best start, but unnecessary testing causes a lot more nervousness than it defrays.  I've been really lucky, and am thankful for it, but I've known many people who are raising kids with serious problems and it puts a strain on a marriage and a family.


But people are allowed to make their own decisions whether I agree with them or not.  Again I refer back to the people who are pro-life, but choose not to vaccinate their children.  In making that decision, they are exposing my children to deadly diseases which we used to have herd immunity to.  How's that for an injustice?  Couldn't that be equated to being pro-disease?

What it all boils down to is that people will disagree on every point.  While one can see the good in something, another can see the bad.  We live in a gray-scale world people, and every day we are called upon to make difficult decisions.


----------



## Jabrosky (May 30, 2012)

Justme said:


> Is this because of the the person or persons they were talking about was black or because what that person or persons were acting like or had done?


The latter, but that doesn't excuse them from resorting to racial slurs. The moment you use a racial slur to describe someone's behavior, you associate that behavior with a certain race, which is fundamentally racist. For example, if you were to call an obnoxious individual who coincidentally happened to be black a "n*****", you would be implicitly linking obnoxious behavior with black people, because "n*****" has been historically used to denote blacks in general.


----------



## Chilari (May 30, 2012)

As Steerpike has pointed out above, it is intellectually lazy and ignorant to demonise or dehumanise individuals or groups whose views you disagree with, and it happens amongst diverse people - whatever political or religious views they hold. The best known examples of this come from religious fundamentalists - those who claim someone will go to hell because they are gay, or had an abortion, or are female and walk around without their hair covered. But equally people can call others "evil" or label them as misogynists, manhaters, murderers or other dehumanising names for engaging in practices they dislike - whether that is attempting to privatise public healthcare, suggesting transwomen should be able to attend women-only events, or, conversely, suggesting transwomen should not be able to attend women-only events, eating meat, conducting experiments on animals, removing children from parents deemed unsuitable by social services, or whatever else might be going on.

Intolerance in all its forms can often be harmful. Often it is borne of ignorance. The way to combat it is through research and understanding of the opposing position - which isn't the same as agreeing with it or conceding that it is equally valid (because some issues are not equally balanced - for example, homeopathy should not be considered medicine because medicine is grounded in science and homeopathy has thus far failed to demonstrate scientific merit - or repeatable, rigourous testing); but it does mean you have to research that position in depth in order to establish its validity, understand the arguments in its favour, and logically come to an unbiased conclusion based on the evidence rather than seeking evidence to justify the position you already hold.

As Steerpike has pointed out, sometimes people prefer to surround themselves with people expressing the same views because it is flattering to believe that you are right and therefore intellectually superior to those who are percieved as wrong, but the tolerant approach, the scientific approach, is to include all data in your analysis, which means listening to every argument from every facet of the debate.

Only by encouraging a culture in which this approach is the accepted and prevalent one will intolerance ultimately be defeated.


----------



## Devor (May 30, 2012)

Chilari said:


> As Steerpike has pointed out, sometimes people prefer to surround themselves with people expressing the same views because it is flattering to believe that you are right and therefore intellectually superior to those who are percieved as wrong, but the tolerant approach, the scientific approach, is to include all data in your analysis, which means listening to every argument from every facet of the debate.



If you want to grow as a person - and this goes for all of you - pick a political issue and seek out someone who is smart and articulate and disagrees with you, and talk about it fairly - talk about it late into the night, or until you realize that you have no idea what you're talking about, whichever comes first.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 30, 2012)

@ Devor.  Done, and done.  HAHA I have a friend who disagrees with me on about everything, and while it's exhausting having a debate for 6 or 7 hours, it gives perspective and also lets off a little steam.  Plus it gives my husband and me something to tallk about the next day (and maybe a few inside jokes too).


----------



## Jabrosky (May 30, 2012)

Steerpike to Ophiucha said:


> The fact that your own posts here are inherently hateful seems to be lost somehow. It is just this sort of thinking on either side that is at the root of bigotry, in my view. Except for being on the opposite side of the issues, you don't sound much different than a truly bigoted right-winger. Is that supposed to be an enlightened way of looking at the world, simply because you're on the left-wing side of the various issues? I'm sure that's not the intent behind it, but if your argument is the right one, then the intent doesn't matter.



Ophiucha's posts may sound "hateful" to you, because every strong opinion sounds hateful to you, but she's only calling a spade a spade. Seriously, if we were debating the Nazis, you would probably chastise us for calling them antisemitic, genocidal white supremacists and denouncing their war crimes. Grow a spine already!


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 30, 2012)

Who are you defining as Nazis?  Hitler?  The SS?  The German army in WW2?  The German people?


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> Ophiucha's posts may sound "hateful" to you, because every strong opinion sounds hateful to you, but she's only calling a spade a spade. Seriously, if we were debating the Nazis, you would probably chastise us for calling them antisemitic, genocidal white supremacists and denouncing their war crimes. Grow a spine already!



Thanks for continuing to demonstrate my point for me, Jabrosky. 

Now, apparently, you can't even distinguish the difference between holding a strong opinion and behaving like a hateful, bigoted person in expressing it. Why am I not surprised by this? You seem to come unhinged rather quickly at disagreement. My advice to you is to take some time to reflect, particularly before undertaking to fail to express yourself intelligently via the keyboard.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

anihow said:


> Who are you defining as Nazis?  Hitler?  The SS?  The German army in WW2?  The German people?



Jabroksy doesn't know. He only understands "them," which is to say "not him." With his mentality, if he were born in Germany in 1920s he'd have been one of the guys wearing the brown shirts later. It takes that kind of blind, unthinking outlook on the issues and those who disagree to pull something like that off 

EDIT: I mean, is anyone else noticing Jabrosky's NAZI fixation?


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 30, 2012)

I am, and I personally feel more than a little offended by it.  I'm a first-generation American, and for me, the "old country" isn't so old.  My mother was born in 1959 Germany and we have a very different view than most here probably do.  Don't you consider our fellow scribes who are German before you post that word?  The German people weren't Nazis, nor were the men drafted into the army, like my grandfather who was sent to fight in Russia when he was 17.  My grandmother lived on a small farm near Dortmund and the Americans sent aid to those poor people in the form of food dropped from planes.  Her father helped hide Jews in a building in town BTW in case it points to anything other than rampant hatred by a whole nation.  I'm so damn tired of hearing about Nazis from people who didn't hear the stories from my grandmother's mouth.  How the army would take what they wanted from the poor people and she and her 6 sisters were locked up at night.  If you're implying that people unconditionally supported the acts of a few men, you're wrong, and to keep bringing it up is very ignorant.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

Well put, anihow. Really, anyone dragging the Nazis into a debate should be disregarded out of hand (unless the debate has to do specifically with Nazis of course).

Jabrosky probably spends quite a bit of time sweating at the keyboard to provide us with these posts, which makes it all the more unfortunate that what we see from him is the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of Snooki tweets.


----------



## Devor (May 30, 2012)

Steerpike, Jabrosky . . . to the casual observer, it seems like there's a bit of a feud between you two, and that - all rights and wrongs aside for a minute - it should really be dealt with.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

Devor, it seems to me Jabrosky likes to start in on the little personal jabs (which doesn't bother me, so I'm not complaining). It's not my fault that I'm funnier than he is, and that no sooner has he started things than he's getting beat down like a plastic mole poking its head up in an arcade full of speed freaks.

I'd hesitate to go so far as to say it is anything personal when we're dealing with an internet forum. We don't know each other.


----------



## Chilari (May 30, 2012)

Can we stop the personal attacks please? No-one should be accusing anyone else of being a hateful bigot or anything else here. I'm not going to do anything about it right now, mostly because I want to go to bed, but personal attacks have no place in this discussion and if you feel it is going that way please avoid escalating it and address the topics that merit discussion using reasoned debate and not inflammatory language.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 30, 2012)

I just object to yet another conversation about Nazis as the greatest example of hatred and injustice.

Can we pick on some other people for a bit?  How about the Vikings?  They raided foreign lands and pillaged for much of history (far longer than the Nazis persecuted Jews).  In fact, the Slavs got their name from the Vikings, who thought they were the perfect people to take as their slaves.  Let's take a few jabs at the Norse people as a whole for that one.  Maybe we can bring their religion into it, calling them nothing more than a compilation of heathen poems.  I just can't hear any more about how people treat dark-skinned people, and I say we focus in on offending a smaller percentage of the world for a bit.

How is it on a WRITING forum we are constantly delving into political debate and hate-mongering?  We're supposed to be creating fantasy, not delving into our own sordid history in an attempt to draw dividing lines between us. Let's work on building something beautiful people, we're all artists here.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 30, 2012)

Steerpike made some excellent points about how people on both the left and the right are capable of civil debate, and both sides are also capable of demonizing each other. Sadly, there are examples of both the civil and the demonizing in some of these posts. I don't want to give infractions over this. I'm not crazy about locking the thread either, especially since my overall feeling is positive about this discussion, but I think this has gone as far as it can go.


----------



## Amanita (May 30, 2012)

Seriously, I'm having my doubts that this discussion about US right-wing or left-wing politics is really taking us any further. 
For me, there are some opinions that simply cannot be tolerated. These include wanting to deny human rights to people because of their gender, ethnic background or similiar reasons and injuring or killing people for the same reasons or encouraging others to do so. In this case, the police has to interfere and legal punishment has to follow. If it's directed against an entire state and is a serious threat, replying with violence is justified if other means fail. Trying "not to be a person that is hated" isn't useful advice in this case because we don't choose which gender, sexual orientation or gender we belong to. Tolerance is the wrong answer in this case and especially if groups (like women) who are traditionally seen as weak "tolerate" this kind of thing, there's litte change of it getting better.

Different opinions on all the issues discussed in the course of the last pages are a completely different matter. Most of them don't have easy answers and people taking one side on them doesn't show if they're good or evil.
The question is how we define "hate" here. Do we want to define it like I did above or do we call every harshly-worded comment "hateful". To say it again, for me "hatred" implies a disregard for the hated person's mental or physical health or even their life and an active desire to see the person or persons in question harmed.
Just two comments I've found somewhere on the internet for examples. (Don't remember the exact wording but I do remember the message.)
1) "I don't like fantasy. It's only read by people who are too stupid to understand about science and to cowardly to deal with reality. Most of them probably don't have any friends either and only sit in front of their computers playing stupid games.
(From a Wikipeda discussion page.)
2)"Muslims are like a disease. I really wonder how we could get rid of them. Killing them all? But how could this be done?
(From a British newspaper comment section.)
We (probably) all disagree with poster one and we don't approve of their personal attacks. Still, we might want to explain to them why they're wrong and it might be worth to start a discussion with them. (Maybe not, but then they're  still free to hold this opinion.)
Poster two on the other hand crossed the line very far and it's unlikely that any polite counter-arguments from others would be any help. Reporting the post would be the right option in this case. (And hoping that the poster wasn't serious.)

If the thread here is about political correct speech and the like, a few quick words about this too. I do think that it is taken to an extreme sometimes and I don't approve of it. Sometimes, wordings seem completely harmless to people not belonging to the targeted group but are completely different for those who do. Sometimes, certain wordings might simply wake up reflective reactions while the person who actually used them, didn't mean to use them in an offensive context at all. In these cases the suggested approach of discussing it calmly and listening to the opinions of all sides is best. Everyone going off to their corner sulking isn't helpful even though it's happening quite often. 
A short example for how specific terms effect people differently due to their background. The use of the term "race" refering to humans seems to be absolutely normal to you. For me, this took a while to get used to because the German translation is at least bordering on being offensive and the idea that people are asked about their race is rather strange. The whole idea of dividing people into races is rather unpopular, it's more about ethnic groups and nationalities.


----------



## Chilari (May 30, 2012)

Thread locked.


----------

