563
Seconded
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
563 points (91.7% liked)
Gay: News, Memes and Discussion
1877 readers
365 users here now
Welcome to /c/Gay - Your LGBTQ+ Haven
We're more than just a community; we're your haven for celebrating LGBTQ+ culture and connecting with like-minded individuals.
Community Rules:
~ 1. No bigotry. Hating someone off of their race, culture, creed, sexuality, or identity is not remotely acceptable. Mistakes can happen but do your best to respect others.
~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.
~ 4. Keep it LGBTQ+ related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.
~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love posts but 3-4 in an hour is plenty enough.
~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.
~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon' and fuck over our artist friends.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Inclusivity without something being excluded usually makes for a powder keg of likely confrontation. As it was pointed out to me recently, being tolerant of the intolerant, should not be a thing, regardless of how tolerant your society (or group, or tribe, or culture, or.... You get the point) is trying to be.
The fact is: pride is inclusive to the point of people being inclusive of it. There's a lot of people at pride events: straights (allies), gay, bi, trans, queer.... The whole rainbow is represented. With only one huge requirement: that you are inclusive enough to tolerate their views... If you are intolerant of any of them, then pride isn't the place for you.
It's the exact reason the protestors who think that the LGBTQ+ community are a bunch of sinners who will burn in hell, are turned away. The only real requirement at pride is that you tolerate other viewpoints, sexualities, sexual orientations, etc. If you're intolerant of any of it, either keep it to yourself, or stay home. That's as simple as it gets.
... At least, that's the idea anyways. There's room for debate on this point, on a case by case basis apparently; for reasons I won't get into. Some pride organizers have seen fit to exclude groups of people based on who they are, not what they believe or tolerate. This is a whole discussion unto itself and not central to the point. It's supposed to be an event where you can be who you are, free from judgement and persecution from others. If you are someone who wants to impose that judgement or persecution, then you're not welcome.
I understand these concepts, I'm not even LGBTQ+, I'm an ally, a supporter, and I have no animosity towards any people for their sexual... anything. I've been to pride events, and supported LGBTQ+ rights and the communities right to exist in all forms. I will vote with my ballot and wallet to support LGBTQ+ rights and the community on all fronts. At every pride event I've been to, there's always been a protest, predictably. There's almost always, also been a counter protest. My favorite was at a local regional pride event in a nearby town. It wasn't a large event, but the protestors were there. There were also counter protestors holding large, almost billboard sized black sheets to isolate them and their messages of hate. They were unwelcome, but since they were on public land expressing their opinion, a conditionally protected activity, they were allowed to be there, while by the same rights, the counter protestors were allowed to be there, blocking them and their signage containing hate, from being seen. It was glorious.
The only thing that a tolerant community/society should make an exception for is intolerance. Period.
So if pride isn't for you because you will not tolerate any of the communities represented, then I would advise you to stay home.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'll fight anyone who tries to take that away from you, but I'll also fight to maintain inclusivity in an inclusive community against the intolerant. You should too, but far be it for me to tell you what to think.
You don't see the glaring contradiction in what you just said?
How can the point of Pride be to "tolerate everyone with no exceptions," while at the same time "never tolerate the intolerant"? You can't have both!
The reason being: what criteria can you possibly use to decide who is "intolerant"?
Let me give you an example with the answers I assume you'd give... Have you ever heard the Chinese parable of "Good Luck, Bad Luck, Who Knows" before? This example is similar...
You see how this could keep going forever?
You're either inclusive or you're not. End of story.
I am aware of this paradox. It is well known and well documented.
The fact is, the paradox must exist.
Being tolerant of intolerance in an of itself will destroy tolerance. This was described quite well in my opinion, with this relatively terse and straightforward illustration:
Intolerance is literally the only thing that the tolerant should be intolerant of.
That's exactly what's being described, and exactly what has happened and exactly the point of all of this discussion. You are free to believe what you want, both of tolerance and intolerance, both of me and the community, and of society. Nobody can, and nobody should ever try to take that from you. You can think and believe what you want. You're entitled to your opinion. You're free to say and do what you like as an extension of your constitutionally protected rights. The thing that right does not grant you, is that anyone needs to listen or respect your opinions, just as you are not obligated to listen or respect anyone else's thoughts or opinions.
What this also doesn't grant you is freedom from the consequences of expressing those thoughts, whether that's in the form of downvotes, being excluded from social gatherings like pride, or being incarcerated for threatening others. Not that I'm saying you've done any of that, nor that you're guilty of any crimes at all, I'm merely pointing out the facts. I have no need to judge you, nor do I have any need to know or change your opinion of me.
It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? Freedom? It's a paradox unto itself as well. We live in a world full of paradoxes; not to mention logical fallacies. There's a lot to be said on this topic, and it's incredibly deep, and there's no easy answer no matter where you start and no matter how long you examine the issues. I've made my decisions, and you must make yours.
All I want to say at this point, is I wish you all the best. Have a wonderful day.
I reject this theory outright. Intolerance exists everywhere, even among the "tolerant" - in other words, you dig deep enough and you'll always find something the "tolerant" group doesn't like about other groups.
For example - and I'm not necessarily saying this is bad! - many so-called "tolerant" leftists won't tolerate certain jokes, certain protected speech and certain people (e.g. cops, billionaires, evangelicals, men with "traditional" views on women, etc), sometimes even going so far as to "cancel" them.
That silencing, whether you believe it is deserved/justified or not, is what right wingers view as intolerance of their ideology, and it's what is partially responsible for driving further division and polarization between our groups.
Yet I am the only leftist I know who is willing to admit that leftists exhibit characteristics of intolerance.
The only thing that really matters is cooperation. Because we are tribal creatures, we only look to our "in-group" for cooperation. When one tribe grows larger than another, their version of tolerance (i.e. the things they're willing to tolerate) becomes the dominant view.
The Holocaust was an example of the most extreme polarization ever observed in human history. There were many factors that led to this, and claiming that those who "tolerated" Nazis were responsible for the rise of "intolerance" implies they had the power to stop them. When for all practical purposes, once the critical mass of the "in group" (Nazis) had already been reached, their level of intolerance for other groups was so extreme that cooperation between groups/tribes became impossible.
I'm of the opinion that intolerance is a symptom of the disease of misunderstanding.
The more we understand each other, the more intolerance can dissipate. And this view is not a fantasy. It is supported by centuries of research into human behavior.
In short, one thing we know with absolute confidence is that as humans we fear what we do not understand. For that reason, I urge those who can't see a path toward forgiving their enemies to take the most radical action imaginable: to try.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :) I hope you have a good day too.
Gonna continue this from the other guy before me;
Tolerance is not a paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Those who break the contract of tolerance with intolerance no longer deserve it, and should be excluded from the protections given to those who do follow it.
You sound like a demagogue. There is no nuance or critical thinking in your take whatsoever.
Watch this and tell me it's impossible to tolerate "intolerant" people.
You're just hurting yourself by not putting effort into discussions that would win you more allies.
I appreciate the share, but the last thing I want is youtube to start adding political content to my feed after i've spent all this time curating its algorithm into something that is mine.
There is a lot of nuance in my statement. But you are right, I didn't give any examples. So let's pull one of yours from earlier;
This sounds like the reading of a contract with a list of arbitrary rules. Every social convention i've seen has also been incredibly arbitrary.
Breaking a social contract doesn't require permanent and total retribution; it usually has a lot of if this then that conventions built right into it. Someone making an off color joke requires a 'hey bro, thats not cool' compared to a neo nazi advocating for the camps to come back at a local government office.
My point is that once the social contract is broken, you aren't breaking it when you call someone else out for doing so.