How far we can take the teaching of tolerance, part II

 


Some further remarks of mine from Freelance Christianity: "Is Tolerance a Luxury or a Virtue?"

"May I say that "teaching tolerance" has gone too far in U.S. "liberal" and "left-wing" circles? Lessons in tolerance are for those who can afford to be forbearing. If a man "tolerates" a female colleague or partner of equal or similar talent or other merit, it's because he can afford to give some ground to her. If a white woman carefully thinks through her presumptions and learns to work amicably with one or two black men, it's because the free passes and protections she enjoys as a "Karen" give her the space she needs to make those small concessions. (Why are we so afraid of these guys, anyway?!) And even among downtrodden non-whites, cis-het men can acknowledge that the civil-dignity claims of the women and GLBT's in their neighborhoods are based almost entirely on the Gospel, the Bill of Rights, and the sermons of Dr. MLK.

"But since when are Jews supposed to sit and listen to anti-Semitic abuse, or blacks to white racist tirades? The [main] problem with the gratuitous insults white Christians routinely throw at non-whites, non-Christians, and the marginalized in general is not that those mean gestures hurt the targets' feelings, because those feelings are solely in the heads of the individuals having them. The [main] problem with the insults is that they are declarations of civic and economic war on the recipients; the speaker is declaring that they intend to undercut the vital interests of the people they hate. And this is an attitude worth stamping out, which is why swastika displays are prohibited in modern Germany." (Emphasis added)

Posted by Jennifer A. Nolan

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more