How to Tolerate the Intolerant

[Speck Tater]

So I have this radical idea; so radical that I'm sure almost everyone will object to it, yet it might be the only way to solve the problem. There is an inborn tendency among the human race to bigotry and xenophobia. We can't realistically expect that to ever go away, so we have to learn to live with it. We have to find a way to protect the right of the bigot to be bigoted without allowing that bigotry to disrupt civil society. Realistically, we need to figure out how to arrange things so that a civilization can tolerate intolerance.

From my blog:

How to Tolerate the Intolerant (permalink)
Categories: - Government and Politics - Religion - Social Issues - Gay and Lesbian Issues
G. Shannon (2006-04-10)

Embrace diversity? That's the American ideal, or so we are told. We are the great "melting pot" were all cultures and religions are welcome, or if not welcome, at least tolerated. But what happens when the cultures we tolerate do not tolerate us in return?

<snip>

Could it be that this vein of intolerance is the fatal flaw in human nature that will ultimately make a peaceful human society impossible? If we look back into prehistory we see isolated tribes and bands, each living within their own culture, largely uninfluenced and unaffected by other cultures. The very survival of the group depended on uniformity and strict adherence to the cultural laws of their society.

<snip>

The problem is a very serious one that threatens the very existence of civilization, and my proposed solution is probably very radical, but I don't see any other way. What I suggest is that those who prefer intolerance and conformity be allowed to exercise their intolerance, but only within the boundaries of their uniform community. Those who want to live in the Amish way are free to live in Amish communities and practice their culture and religion in any way they choose. Outside of the Amish community it's none of our business what they do. And outside of the Amish community it's none of their business what we do. If the Muslim want to enforce Sharia law then it is their right to practice whatever they want within the geographical confines of their Muslim community. What they do inside their community is none of our business, and what we do outside the borders of their community is none of their business.

<snip>

http://speakoutusa.com/index.php

[VelmaD]

1. There are a few BIG problems with this proposal

First, how do you deal with children born into these seperate communities? They didn't chose to be born there. Do we take them away from their parents to ensure they are raised in a more tolerant environment? Or do we let them grow up in an environment where they will be indoctrinated into an intolerant worldview?

There's also the problem of policing whether these communities truly let people out who want to leave.

The answer to intolerance is not engaging in even more seperation from one another.

[Speck Tater]

2. Yes, but...

you said: The answer to intolerance is not engaging in even more seperation from one another.

But neither is throwing all the intolerant people into civil society so they can duke it out and have their wars at the expense of the tolerant, peace-loving people. If T-Rex were still alive today I'm sure we'd do everything in our power to protect our communities from this killer dinosaur. Intolerant people are like killer dionsaurs; they don't care who gets hurt or killed in their rampages. We need to protect ourselves from them somehow, or we'll become the most open-minded of all the extinct species on the planet. Small consolation.

[VelmaD]

4. The other big problem...

with roping people off into seperate "communities" is that when you put a bunch of like-minded people together you get group think of the worst kind. They would turn into breeding grounds for even more drastic strains of intolerance. If the intolerant don't ever have to interact with people who aren't just like them then it's easier for them to view others as less human than themselves...which is always the necessary first mental step toward attempting to subjugate or kill everyone who isn't just like you.

[MrPrax]

3. Excuse me...

but many liberals tend to be confused by the fact that 'tolerance' is a social virtue ONLY and NOT--I repeat--NOT a social goal in and of itself.

Words like 'tolerance', 'peace', 'diversity' 'mulitculturalism' like marketing terms so as to avoid the questions that lie within their 'codes'.

They don't ask questions as to whether there are limits to any of these 'coo' terms, largely because they don't want to destroy the illusion of 'solidarity'.

They also never discuss that these 'desireable' virtues are also part and parcel of neo-liberalism globalist economy and it's ability to 'homogenize' culture, community and make it impossible to ever practise 'peace' 'tolerance' or 'diversity'. Global capital MUST present itself an inevitable process of diversification in order for it to transplant itself into 'foreign' communities.

Unfortunately some liberals have been unwittingly engaged in this homogenity of flattening out distinctions and accepting the tawdry spectacle of 'it's a small world' afterall.

Think of the Greenpeace slogan: "Think Globally, Act Locally"--this could also be the motto of any multi-national corporation, no?

Liberals really need to instruct themselves better on what exactly they THINK the end game should be in all this...

[Speck Tater]

5. What would San Fransisco be without China Town?

Does tolerance mean China Town should be disbanded and all the residents forced to live among the general population? Is it good that China is trying to fill Tibet with Han people to homogonize Tibet's unique culture with that of China as a whole?

To maintain a cultural heritage REQUIRES a certain amount of isolation from other, incompatable cultures. The Amish would not be Amish if forced to live in New York City. They can only be what they are in relative isolation from competing cultures. And yes, children raised in Amish communities are "indoctrinated" with Amish traditions. So what? Isn't that their right as well? Should the Amish be forced to send their children to non-Amish schools?

Is this a free country or not? We need to recognize the FACT that some cultures prefer to isolate themselves from other cultures, and we need to respect that fact. As much as Conservatives tend to live in their fantasy world, ignoring reality when it conflicts with their ideals, so too do Liberals who imagine a world where everyone sits around the camp fire singing Kumbaya and sharing group hugs. That irrational fantasy is as much at odds with the realities of human nature as is the Conservative fantasy where nobody is gay and everyone gathers in a Christian church twice week to sing hymns and listen to sermons.

Fantasy is fantasy, and neither fantasy is a realistic possibility given human nature.

[Speck Tater]

6. This is what is evolving, like it or not

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6204444.story?coll=la-story-footer

Christians suing for the right to be intolerant. Do they have that right? I say they do, within the confines of their own cultural community. The only thing wrong with my solution to the problem is that it conflicts with the fantasies of both the Liberal and the Conservative and focuses on reality instead. Neither side wants to look at reality when it conflicts with their fanatsies.

[SmokingJacket]

7. This is what the entire history of the world has been about...

"MY tribe gets this land, YOURS gets that. What, no way, you CANNOT have that waterfall! No way, you mammoth-skin wearing fools, why don't you wear bear skin like a civilized person?? Look, lets get together and SHARE the waterfall, but first we have to kill off all those FISH EATING people!"

I don't think intolerance of differences is hardwired, though -- but competition for resources leads people to form teams of one kind or another.

I don't see an overwhelming need to be tolerant of bigotry, anyway. People are already free to hate whomever they please -- but it's perfectly reasonable for our society to demand equal TREATMENT of its citizens.

[Speck Tater]

8. Maybe not hardwired in all cases...

But I believe that some people are born left-handed, some people are born gay, and some people are born bigots. It probably has something to do with the fear circuitry of the brain resulting in a kind of hyper-vigilence that presdiposes a person to becoming a bigot. Like alchohalism, it's not 100% genetic, but it certainly has a significant genetic component, and that's why I think that bigotry cannot be "cured" any more than left-handedness can be "cured".

Therefore, since it can't be erradicated, it must accomodated.

[SmokingJacket]

9. Well, sure.

Being a serial killer or an asshole is probably hardwired in a similar way, but there's no reason we need to "accomodate" it, unless accomodating it means recognizing that some people "are just that way."

One more time: people are free to think whatever they want -- we have no ability to control people's thoughts, and frankly, we shouldn't.

But people's *actions* are a different matter. We have discrimination laws in place to limit bigoted actions in society, and they're a good thing.

Do you propose we weaken discrimination laws in order to accomodate bigotry?

[Speck Tater]

10. No, I don't propose that

We shouldn't weaken discrimination laws to accomodate bigotry. Instead we have the choice of constantly fighting bigotry in OUR community, or putting all the bigots somewhere where we don't have to put up with the constant annoyance of their presence. Let them live in their own little isolated and bigoted communites where they can be as bigoted as they want, as long as that bigotry doesn't cross their borders into the free zone.

If a person wants to be a hermit, let them go be a hermit. If a person wants to be Amish, let them live in an Amish community. If a person wants to be a bigot, let them go live in a bigot community. Just keep them out of MY community. Face it, some people just need to comfort of a uniform community of people who all think exactly like they do. So let them have their close-mided community. That way everybody gets what they want and we don't have to listen to them anymore.

I knew my porposed solution would be too radical for most people to accept. Framkly there's not a chance it will ever become official policy. But it's happening anyway. That's the direction our mixed culture is evolving toward; semi-isolated pockets of like-minded people living in a community with people that share their values. Maybe that's how it needs to be.

[SmokingJacket]

11. People are already drawn to areas/communities that support them.

I live in a very liberal town. I love it that I don't have to deal with freepers every day. Maybe it would be better for my everlasting soul if I did, but it's better for my blood pressure that I don't.

But are these proposed communities totally self-governing? Would my tax-dollars go to support them? I hope not. I don't want to cede $1 to a town that won't allow blacks to live in it, for example.

I think the system we have now works fine: freedom to live wherever you want, and legal prohibitions against discrimination.

I don't understand why you think taxpayers should support special Bigot Towns.