Sunday, March 28, 2010

Tolerance is not Acceptance.

Readers of this blog will not be surprised by the fact that I don't support the concept of "Gay Marriage". In fact I don't support female ordination, polygamy and a lot of other social novelties which men of a more saner age would have instantly rejected. Of course the usual charge levied at me by "sensible people" who are horrified at my views is that I'm intolerant.
Homosexuals and other groups pushing a social agenda frequently bandy the term around to censure anyone who opposes the desire to fully legalise whatever social innovation they are seeking.

The virtue of tolerance is the virtue of living with people whom you don't like or disagree with. Tolerance isn't liking what you don't like or agreeing with that which you don't agree; that is acceptance. Of course, with the social innovators, these people aren't seeking tolerance, what they're wanting is full acceptance of their behaviour under the guise of tolerance. If a man wants me to be tolerant of his behaviour he wants me to leave him in peace even though I find his behaviour objectionable. What the liberal mob wants when it calls for tolerance is for me to accept without question their system of belief.

Take for example Homophobia. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, does a man have a right to be homophobic? Or a Racist? The opinion may be disagreeable but provided a man leaves others in peace, should he be censured for holding that opinion?

Liberals of course would argue that every man has a right to an opinion, but when given legislative power they effectively nullify that right, and the way they do this is through anti-discrimination laws. Now let me be perfectly clear, society is divided into the public and private spheres, and tolerance is a virtue of the public sphere. What the anti-discrimination laws do is encroach on the private sphere. A private businessman may not like homosexuals but he is compelled to employ them. Catholics are compelled to hire and enroll Muslims into their schools under the name of anti-discrimination. Freedom of speech is effectively nullified by "Hate speech" laws, which are ostensibly designed to promote tolerance but in reality, legal mechanisms to enforce group think as Geert Wilders found out. Now I don't like Geert Wilders, but what I really hate is how any criticism of Islam is immediately characterised by the liberalised Dutch political class as hate speech and pretext for punishing Mr Wilders.

Of course, not all hate speech is hate speech. Criticism of white men(Racism) is perfectly acceptable, criticism of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church is not hate crime, but walk into any Government organisation or Media outlet and say Homosexuality is wrong or hold racist opinions and suddenly the call to punish is proclaimed far and wide. Young Carrie Prejean learned this the hard way. When asked what she thought about same sex marriages she gave this reply:
Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.
Note, she was not calling for the gassing of gays, or their beating or their imprisonment, what she was saying in a free country where people can live as they please and I, Carrie, don't agree with that lifestyle.

Well the predictable happened--and it's predictable because it has happened so many times before--Ms Prejean was pilloried from pillar to post for holding an unacceptable opinion; not for acting inappropriately or for infringing anyones rights. The parties that most openly talk about tolerance are those who cannot tolerate anyone having an opinion that differs from their own, the whole liberal/multicultural/diversity industry rose as one voice condemning Ms Prejean. Liberal hypocrisy in action.

Tolerance is a public virtue which allows people with differing beliefs to share a common public life. It however implies a private sphere in which the individual has a right to be intolerant. It acknowledges the right to hold and freely express an opinion without censure from another. More importantly it demands from others the obligation to publicly tolerate the disagreeable. This of course is precisely what the "enthusiastic" Lefties do not want, they don't tolerate anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Under the threat of punishment, they want all of us to think a certain way, or more importantly, not to think at all.


Will S. said...

I know you recently said to Mark Richardson that you're not a big fan of James Kalb, due to his reactionary knee-jerk traditionalism, but I think that nevertheless, you might like his book The Tyranny of Liberalism, as Kalb puts forth his contention, rather persuasively, that liberalism necessarily devolves into tyranny, over time. And it doesn't get much into prescription of what he thinks the alternatives should be; it's mostly focused on diagnosis of the status quo, and how we got here. Worth a read, IMO; I certainly enjoyed it, and found it valuable.

The Social Pathologist said...

Will S:

The real problem is time. If I had some I'd want to read his book, but between all my other tasks, I've only got time for the stuff that stands out. His internet presence is thoughtful but he strikes me more as Burke, as you rightly pointed out a diagnostician without a cure. But he is not particularly good as a diagnostician from what I have read--I could be wrong with exposure to more of his writings--Any man who can synapse two neurons knows our current society has betrayed its forebears and is in a phase of accelerated decline, the trick is how to fix it. But perhaps a beginning step to ask is, how did liberalism emerge so victorious? Were there faults in conservative society that facilitated the rise of liberalism?
The problem with many conservatives is that they don't even ask this fundamental question, since such talk is heresy.

"Game" is a conservative breakthrough. Not so much the Hedonistic lifestyle that its most vigourous proponents espouse, rather it reaffirms the concept of human nature and improves upon the flawed concept that traditionalists had. It shatters both traditionalist interpretations of sexuality--(which were in many ways wrong with regard to women)and Liberal idiocy with regard to the understanding of the sexes. It's a way forward for Conservatives by acknowledging the past was not perfect and improving upon it whilst totally outflanking the liberals.

Imagine you're a successful Black man, what does traditionalism offer? A return to the Jim Crow laws? Or a successful female scientist; a return to the kitchen? I know these are simplistic issues but many people were disadvantaged by traditional society and had legitimate grievances with it. The point is to identify the legitimate grievances and move on.

Conservatism first needs to understand where it went wrong before it can make things right. Kalb et al do us a service by pointing to the wrongs of liberalism, but perhaps they should turn their intellectual faculties upon analyzing the modern conservative failure.

Alte said...

As a black female engineer, I found your last comment spot-on. There were good and bad aspects of traditional American culture, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But I would argue that it wasn't as bad for women as it was for blacks. Most women wanted to be housewives and mothers. Back then, those were position of respect and something worth attaining. Before the birth rate declined, it was difficult to be both a mother and an employee, because women had on average 8 children. Only the wealthiest women, who could afford nannies, could manage to do both. Or those women who didn't marry.

That said, I do think that women should be at home with their young children. Their children need their care and attention, especially when they are so small and vulnerable.

Jim Crow was about racism/tribalism. It had nothing to do with traditional values, it was more a reflection upon human nature.

Will S. said...

SP: Agreed; while part of me bristles at the notion that 'game' is like the 'Red Pill' in the Matrix, some sort of secret, esoteric knowledge that assorted internet libertarian sci-fi fans and conspiracy theorists have stumbled upon (and oh, how that metaphor is popular, as is the utopian notion that 'sex-bots' will alleviate desire for real women; yeah, right...), I can't help but wonder why more people, esp. conservatives, can't see how misandristic and female supremacist our society has become, and why almost every male I know is a white-knighting proponent of chivalry, not seeing the direct line from chivalry to modern feminism.

Alte: Yeah, I'm brown, with a Third-World-immigrant mother, myself; any sort of reactionary traditionalism that would involve deportation of us dark folk, even those of us born in the West, is something I obviously can't get on board with, even if my white half is slightly sympathetic to concerns about culture and assimilability.

Alte said...

Male chivalry and female narcissism are ingrained in our nature. There's not much use in complaining about it. One might as well complain about why the sky is blue and the grass is green.

I have to fight myself not to be completely self-centered and to consider the welfare of others, and my husband has to fight himself not to spoil me and drown me in gifts.

It's a dichotomy that makes sense within traditional marriage (which balanced out the natures), but it turns into anarchy outside of such a structure.

So, we should take a hint from the success of marriage, and figure out how to turn male chivalry and female narcissism into positive forces. Marriage is good for women and their children, and once men and women realize this, and see how marriage is dying, they will be more inclined to agree with us.

Will S. said...

I see what you're saying, Alte, and to a point, I agree, but not entirely; I think that a man rushing forward to open a door for a woman is a learned behaviour, not one that comes naturally - unless her hands are full. To the extent that a man loves his wife, and enjoys doing nice things for her, yes, in that regard, chivalry is natural. And rescuing a woman from an attacker, in public, seems like a natural thing to do, too. But standing up when a woman enters the room, and not sitting down till she's taken her seat, etc. are not likely so much signs of love and affection, as a learned behaviour. So, I think it's a question of terminology; both natural, protective and loving, reflexive actions, and also learned behaviours (putting down one's jacket over a puddle so she can walk through it is one that just makes me shake my head), get grouped together under chivalry. I'm inclined to see the learned behaviours as part of the code of knights, etc., and not see them in the same light as the other.

Alte said...

I meant instinctual chivalry, not the romanticized version. More the protection and provision instincts.

That's what the "white knighting" is about. I've found that even the men who complain about "white knighting" can't help but indulge in it occasionally. It's ingrained. A good thing, too! Human kind would have died out a long time ago, without it.

My point is a larger one: men want to protect women, so they tend to be reluctant to support any cause they see as being anti-woman. Remember, it was men who voted for female suffrage, not women. Conservatism won't go anywhere unless it convinces the majority of men that it is the best thing for women and children (which it is). Then they can feel good about supporting it.

There will always be men who don't care about women, but they are (still) in the minority.

Will S. said...

Right, we're largely on the same wavelength, I think.

As far as that term "white knighting", though, I'd always understood it to mean not the truly instinctual stuff, that any-decent-minded sort would have no objection to, but rather, the pedestalization of women, the rushing to defend female behaviour and condemn male behaviour, all too often, whether or not the woman is deserving or not, acting ladylike. For example, recently, a young woman was rude to me in an online discussion, and I called her on it; she then called me a vulgar name, and while I didn't respond in kind, I let her know how little I thought of people like her, in terms of people not knowing what the heck they're talking about, but spouting off foolishly anyway - that was it; again, I used no rude words; I think 'blowhard' was the extent of my very indirect, yet obvious, 'insult', if one would call it that. The owner of the particular forum, an older man, never called her on her calling me the rude name, but he did take the trouble to privately email her and encourage her not to visit the comments stream and see all the 'rudeness' I supposedly had directed at her. Nevertheless, she did, and told me and all the world about his private correspondance with her (classy, eh?), while calling me the rude name over and over again multiple times, explaining to me just why she thought I was an example of what she was calling me. So, IMO, I think the manosphere would call the old man's ingrained, trained behaviour to protect this non-lady's 'ears' from a passive, indirect comment, whilst not calling her on her rude behaviour towards me, an example of "white-knighting"; I think for most older men, such actions, though trained, come almost naturally to them. It bothers me to no end that society expects young men to act like gentlemen, but doesn't require young women to act like ladies, yet still insists that men treat them as if they were. Not me; no "white-knighting" for me. I'd help a damsel genuinely in distress, if I thought she needed help and deserved it; but I'll never give up my seat on a bus or train; women wanted equality, now they can obey the first-come, first-serve, law-of-the-jungle approach that men have always lived by with respect to other men. And if some old fart said to me, wouldn't I give up my seat for a lady, I'd ask him where was the lady in question, and how could he tell she was one.

The truly non-instinctual kind of chivalry can be unlearned, and men really should do so, and let the chips fall where they may. As per SP's latest post, it's right that men react to that sort of thing as they do, as they always have, and too bad for silly modern young women who believe they can have their cake and eat it too.

I agree with you, that conservatism will go nowhere unless it can convince men and women alike that opposing feminism is in the interest of everyone, male, female, and children alike. Though I don't love the metaphor, more men and women need to take the 'Red Pill', and have their eyes opened to the true reality as it is, today.

Alte said...

I think there are those in the manosphere who would decry a man rushing to defend any woman, deserving or not. That was what I was referring to.

I've had men defend me in forums before, and the other men immediately jump on them in anger. All only electronically, of course, but things can get quite heated.

Will S. said...

Alas, yes, there are genuine misogynists in the manosphere, which is a shame, as their antics will, at least to some extent, prevent the saner voices from getting a fair hearing for what they have to say, due to 'guilt by association'. And yes, alas, any defense of any women under any circumstances whatsoever is too much for some men. Pity, because while the frustrations of many are understandable, and one can sympathize, such doesn't excuse outright hate, which is counterproductive, to say the least.

The Social Pathologist said...

Will and Alte, thanks for commenting.

I can't help but wonder why more people, esp. conservatives, can't see how misandristic and female supremacist our society has become, and why almost every male I know is a white-knighting proponent of chivalry, not seeing the direct line from chivalry to modern feminism.

My understanding of chivalry was that it was conditional; one had to be a lady. I still operate on the assumption that a woman is a lady until proven otherwise. When proven otherwise the courtesy stops.

Jim Crow was about racism/tribalism. It had nothing to do with traditional values, it was more a reflection upon human nature.

I think racism is part and parcel of human nature as is tribalism, not some aberration. It rears its ugly head in all societies and under all conditions. The question is how to deal with it in such a way that doesn't trample human dignity and intelligence whilst at the same time acknowledging it.Pretending that it's not there is not a solution. But that's stuff for another post.

Will. I think the Western conception of women was one of the fatal weak spots in western culture which the Leftists brilliantly exploited. Many conservatives are traditionalists and don't do any thinking. That's why the pedastalization continues; no new thought has been applied to the subject. In fact, I suspect pedastalization is at play yet again even with regard to misogyny, the ardent misogynists pedastalize women in the opposite direction as some form of exceptional evil. Women are either painted as saints or devils, never as human beings.

anoukange said...

"Liberals of course would argue that every man has a right to an opinion, but when given legislative power they effectively nullify that right, and the way they do this is through anti-discrimination laws."

-That sentence s pure gold and one of my main issues with flaming liberals. They cry for freedom and then take it away with their next breath or action. Racism has its place, stereotypes have their place, phobias have their place, and so on. It comes down to the levels and degrees of beliefs and actions, and it can get tricky and people can become mis-guided. I find myself often in the position of defending freedom of thought and lifestyle, but I too have my own limitations with accepting all this can permit. Growing up in the world of theater and ballet, gay men were some of the best performers but on a personal level they drove me nuts, I was very annoyed by most of them. Which, in turn, makes for some hypocrisy.

Father Marker said...

This comment is a couple of years after the fact but I note that the liberals have become the new bigots of the millenium. In the old days the bigots were racist, homophobic, anti-abortion etc. etc.

The new bigots (neo-bigots) are the thought police that tell us all how to think and when they have the levers of power will persecute those who think differently to themselves. Tolerance is not one of their strong points.

Anonymous said...

I don't even know how I stopped up right here, but I believed this publish used to be great. I do not recognise who you might be but certainly you are going to a famous blogger should you are not already. Cheers!

My page: graduate certificate online