It’s not “mainstream liberalism” that’s acting like that any more than it’s “mainstream conservatism” that’s waving nazi flags over Florida highways and calling every Republican that doesn’t grovel to Trump a RINO.
Also tolerance for people and tolerance for what they are recognizing as intolerance are not the same thing. If person A says I’m “X”, and person B says “being X is an abomination” or “you’re not X. I’m telling you you’re Y” or something along those lines, then person B is intolerant of person A. It’s a perfectly reasonable position to say “we should be accepting of X, and Y, and Z and all the other letters, and fuck anyone like person B who says otherwise”. Person B can argue that what they said or meant was misunderstood and wasn’t intolerance. But if they meant what they said, they don’t get to demand that just because someone else is tolerant of people of different physicalities, cultures, religions, races, ethnicities, nationalities, orientations, identities, etc. that they must tolerate their intolerance too.
And if you are intolerant of people who are “X” and don’t want to be called out on it, then you shouldn’t express that intolerance or act on it. If you do, you should do so under the understanding that you earned the consequences for your actions.
You’re talking about the paradigm of tolerance, which isn’t what I’m referring to at all. I probably didn’t make it clear that I’m not talking about the Chappelle situation. What I meant is that the left is becoming a lot more tribalistic, just like the examples you gave of right wing tribalism at the beginning of your response. I agree that liberalism isn’t engaging in it any more than the right, but we shouldn’t be engaging in it at all. We’re supposed to be the thinking group. How can we be a thinking group if we cast out anyone who presents opposing ideas for things? I’m talking about things like accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with the ideas presented by Beverly DiAngelo of being racist. Or someone not liking a movie starring a gay character being called homophobic, when they just didn’t like the movie. There’s far too much accusation occurring which stifles open discussion, and open discussion is where growth happens.
I think it’s many things, but the big one is a reaction to the polarization of politics by the media and the radicalization of the right/rise of fascism. Fascists will spout any nonsensical belief that they can come up with, because they know they sound ridiculous and they don’t care. Because that’s not the point. The point is to make you have to waste energy debunking it while they do something else. Add in the often used Republican strategy of rendering useful words into meaningless garbage, like “woke” and “politically correct” before it, and the thinking man is left two steps behind and always trying to play catch-up with those trying to torch everything they can get their hands on.
So with a group spouting nonsense with the sole purpose of having their opponents be too busy disproving it to prevent them from destroying the rights of minorities, and a group that claims that both sides are equally as bad because they agree with the fascists but don’t want to take responsibility or face the consequences for having those opinions, is it any wonder that actual disagreement is being mistaken for that disingenuous “enlightened centrism”?
Plus, there’s a time for discourse, and a time for action. And I think people are starting to feel that we’ve spent too many years doing the first and we need to start doing the second. In short, I think people are starting to feel that there’s some kind of deadline fast approaching and the stress is starting to get to them.
Yes, that’s a good point. The nonsensical arguments meant to consume energy were a master stroke against actual discourse online and in person. Unfortunately it has had the desired effect, and many of us aren’t engaging in discourse with like-minded people about things we mostly agree on. The right has done such a good job of making every point contentious that any statement against the commonly accepted group think is treated as an outsider trying to sow discord. I see it all the time online, and I’m sure you’ve seen it too, where someone who is very liberal gets jumped all over and accused of being a trumper, or a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever, just because they have their own unique perspective of an argument that they’ve obviously put time and thought into. I’ve even encountered it with close personal friends when discussing new radical evaluations of old conceptions. We’re in a rough spot as a society right now. We just might be on a deadline if we can’t figure out how to talk to each other again.
Well yeah, I can agree with that. Tribalism is human nature at the base though. It’s something that is easy to fall into and has to be overcome through thoughtful reflection and discourse. Most people aren’t that conscientious though
A) Straight is sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with being cisgender. B) Cisgendered is the etymologically correct term to use for someone who isn’t transgendered. C) If someone has a good faith non-disparaging preferred term for themselves other than cisgendered, then by all means use that
It’s not “mainstream liberalism” that’s acting like that any more than it’s “mainstream conservatism” that’s waving nazi flags over Florida highways and calling every Republican that doesn’t grovel to Trump a RINO.
Also tolerance for people and tolerance for what they are recognizing as intolerance are not the same thing. If person A says I’m “X”, and person B says “being X is an abomination” or “you’re not X. I’m telling you you’re Y” or something along those lines, then person B is intolerant of person A. It’s a perfectly reasonable position to say “we should be accepting of X, and Y, and Z and all the other letters, and fuck anyone like person B who says otherwise”. Person B can argue that what they said or meant was misunderstood and wasn’t intolerance. But if they meant what they said, they don’t get to demand that just because someone else is tolerant of people of different physicalities, cultures, religions, races, ethnicities, nationalities, orientations, identities, etc. that they must tolerate their intolerance too.
And if you are intolerant of people who are “X” and don’t want to be called out on it, then you shouldn’t express that intolerance or act on it. If you do, you should do so under the understanding that you earned the consequences for your actions.
You’re talking about the paradigm of tolerance, which isn’t what I’m referring to at all. I probably didn’t make it clear that I’m not talking about the Chappelle situation. What I meant is that the left is becoming a lot more tribalistic, just like the examples you gave of right wing tribalism at the beginning of your response. I agree that liberalism isn’t engaging in it any more than the right, but we shouldn’t be engaging in it at all. We’re supposed to be the thinking group. How can we be a thinking group if we cast out anyone who presents opposing ideas for things? I’m talking about things like accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with the ideas presented by Beverly DiAngelo of being racist. Or someone not liking a movie starring a gay character being called homophobic, when they just didn’t like the movie. There’s far too much accusation occurring which stifles open discussion, and open discussion is where growth happens.
I think it’s many things, but the big one is a reaction to the polarization of politics by the media and the radicalization of the right/rise of fascism. Fascists will spout any nonsensical belief that they can come up with, because they know they sound ridiculous and they don’t care. Because that’s not the point. The point is to make you have to waste energy debunking it while they do something else. Add in the often used Republican strategy of rendering useful words into meaningless garbage, like “woke” and “politically correct” before it, and the thinking man is left two steps behind and always trying to play catch-up with those trying to torch everything they can get their hands on.
So with a group spouting nonsense with the sole purpose of having their opponents be too busy disproving it to prevent them from destroying the rights of minorities, and a group that claims that both sides are equally as bad because they agree with the fascists but don’t want to take responsibility or face the consequences for having those opinions, is it any wonder that actual disagreement is being mistaken for that disingenuous “enlightened centrism”?
Plus, there’s a time for discourse, and a time for action. And I think people are starting to feel that we’ve spent too many years doing the first and we need to start doing the second. In short, I think people are starting to feel that there’s some kind of deadline fast approaching and the stress is starting to get to them.
Yes, that’s a good point. The nonsensical arguments meant to consume energy were a master stroke against actual discourse online and in person. Unfortunately it has had the desired effect, and many of us aren’t engaging in discourse with like-minded people about things we mostly agree on. The right has done such a good job of making every point contentious that any statement against the commonly accepted group think is treated as an outsider trying to sow discord. I see it all the time online, and I’m sure you’ve seen it too, where someone who is very liberal gets jumped all over and accused of being a trumper, or a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever, just because they have their own unique perspective of an argument that they’ve obviously put time and thought into. I’ve even encountered it with close personal friends when discussing new radical evaluations of old conceptions. We’re in a rough spot as a society right now. We just might be on a deadline if we can’t figure out how to talk to each other again.
Well yeah, I can agree with that. Tribalism is human nature at the base though. It’s something that is easy to fall into and has to be overcome through thoughtful reflection and discourse. Most people aren’t that conscientious though
Okay, what do you say to people who insist on calling straight people cis gendered, when they’re told/asked not to?
A) Straight is sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with being cisgender. B) Cisgendered is the etymologically correct term to use for someone who isn’t transgendered. C) If someone has a good faith non-disparaging preferred term for themselves other than cisgendered, then by all means use that
Nice.