Teaching Tolerance

[jimmy]

Jet, BL--

That sounds about right to me. The more I'm thinking about it the more my arguement is just to make sure that things aren't being EXCLUDED simply because the person may have been gay or black or a woman or whatever. But you're right; pointing it out and making a big deal of it DOES seem counter productive to me.

However I disagree with Jet's statements about the right of intolerance. You HAVE the right to FEEL intolerant about any view point you want. You just can't do anything about it. You can protest against the KKK but as long as they are merely speaking ideas and aren't engaging in actions, they have every right to do what they want and you have to be tolerant of that. Same goes for Christians and gays. Christians can condemn them all they want in their own circles and preach about how they are wrong. But they must be tolerant of their lifestyle in as much as they can't interfere with their rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

I think I'm getting misunderstood here. I'm not supposing that everyone needs to think everyone is right and that no one should take a moral stance on anything. I just believe that a person's right to disagree with the majority or to live a life that is different from the norm, without being illegal, should be tolerated by other groups who would, in turn, wish that same tolerance for themselves. We set the absolute standards for behavior that you speak of, so I see no reason why we can't keep order and promote tolerance at the same time.

 

[jimmy]

And Vrai,

My brother is out to everyone except my Grandparents. They wouldn't understand and my grandmother is sick so we don't feel the need to burden her. Actually, my bro would LOVE to tell them because he's of the mindset "if they dont' like it, they don't really love me" which I don't think is true. But my father has requested that he not say anything to them and he's respected that. But other than that, I was the last person in the family that he came out to. After that, he's been out to everyone we know...I think...

 

[jimmy]

Ok, I've had to go over this in my mind several times because I keep getting off track. Point taken about the "absolute standards" from a philisophical point. It's just that I come down on the exact opposite side of that arguement in that I don't believe in a specific God or religious text so no philosophy is any more "correct" to me than any other. How could I argue so? That's why I tend NOT to use philosophy as a basis for any arguement. Too objective.

However, in terms of politics, there is a very practical reason for protecting our citizens rights to freedom of speech and everything that comes with it which I'm sure I don't have to point out to you. Sure, the power games of politics and business (pretty much one in the same as far as how they work) will result in an unfortunate but inevitable "losers and winners" scenario but I think you have to pick your battles. Did I object to the Taliban's treatment of women? Yes. Did we have any basis for stepping in based on that alone? I think no. Could a KKK member take control of a company and fire all black employees? Sure but we've got laws in place to prevent that from happening. His right to persue happiness ends when it infringes on someone elses. Corporate CEO's, CFO's etc. shills? You betcha. Criminals? Sure, if they get caught. But where does tolerance have anything to do with that? No one is suggesting that everyone's viewpoints be taken at face value and not questioned. But tolerance of differences that are benign is not inclusive of breaking the law (the Clearwater case which I'm not familiar with). It's a shame that people are too afraid to step up if that's really what happened. But that's not what MY tolerance "allows". YOUR absolute standards are yours and yours alone and, hey, you're welcome to them. And THAT is tolerance. But use those standards to condemn someone else or initiate action against them and that is where the line is crossed.

 

[Larry Gude]

jimmy,

Here's a little intellectual exercise for the subject:

I will not tolerate the way you write any longer.

Now, what I mean by that is simply I expect people to use more paragraph breaks to make their post more "readable" which has nothing to do with WHAT you write.

If you do this you do two things; you get along better with others who now, if nothing else, consider you mannerly and two, more people read and perhaps accept or engage you in what you have to say.

Hence, people, whatever their issue may be, whom are militant about their issue, in essence, eschew paragraph breaks, so to speak. It makes them hard to understand and shows absolutely no fellowship to people who they then go about lambasting as being intolerant of others (their) views.

And then to the heart of the matter, the word tolerance. It is a weapon word like racist.

If this were a news story it would be:

"Right wing zealot Larry Gude is clearly intolerant towards jimmy" and left at that.

It is my humble opinion that what people generally are "intolerant" about is the poor manners and boorish way some people go about getting their way.

 

[vraiblonde]

Could a KKK member take control of a company and fire all black employees? Sure but we've got laws in place to prevent that from happening. His right to persue happiness ends when it infringes on someone elses.

Again I ask the question: Who would want to work for someone like that? Even if the law forces them to keep you employed, wouldn't you be happier working for someone who doesn't hate you for some arbitrary reason?

 

[Ken King]

Larry,

You almost had me until you had a "paragraph" with two sentences.

You lost me when you did that.

I simply won't tolerate that.

What were you thinking?

You are too funny.

 

[Hessian]

Greetings from the guy only a few people tolerate

Jetmonkey nailed a few points that I really can't add to...well done.
I also applaud Ken for approaching the subject in a Classical Education method: definition of terms (thus clearing up any arguments over misuse of the term!)

If you want an interesting approach to the relationship between Tolerance, Political Correctness and Diversity training, I believe you can consult the writings of Chairman Mao as he theorized how to split up his capitalist opponents.

I'll come back to one of my common themes: paradox. The Soviet Union collapses on its own people because they were tired of the lies...(How did they know they were lies?)It was taught to them, saturated their news, dominated their speeches...and all their attempts to create a mindset of the "Utopian" socialist state fell flat.
Look who rebelled in Tianniman square...College students who were not gonna take the party line anymore!
Look at the results of celebrating "Black History Month!" Black parents who feel it should be incorporated year round...complaints from other minorities, the classic praising for the black guy who invented a door stop while the class is clueless who Edison is....so, what is the result? Sullen Black kids who could care less about Booker T Washington while snarling like Malcolm X...this is a ridiculous waste of precious time and energy.

A man's merit should not be weighed on the color of his skin but by the content of his character. (Forgive the paraphrase Martin ...)

"Tolerance? It is merely a ploy by the left to say your beliefs, patriotism, and unity must be replaced with pantheism, multiculturalism, socialism, and political correctness.

 

[Larry Gude]

King,

Funny, yes, but correct, in your view?

 

[jimmy]

Quick question,

Hessian,

How can you be for prayer in schools, yet, anti-tolerance? Isn't the school's, and the nations for that matter, intolerance of religion in such institutions something you continually rally against? But, at the same time, you don't expect anyone to be tolerant of your religion? How can that be?

Or is it that when tolerance of previous social taboos (minorities, women, gays) comes up, only THOSE causes are labled as 'tolerance'?

I don't understand the distinction between what you all are labeling as "politically correct" and other belief systems for which you would assume, I guess, natural tolerance.

Ken, you are adamantly against desecration of the flag. You find it personally offensive. So should someone seeking to make a political statement be tolerant of your beliefs on that matter?

Vrai, no of course a black person wouldn't want to work for a member of the KKK.

But that the head of that company is open enough about his racism that the black-would-be-employee is aware enough to choose NOT to work for them, that KKK CEO should be prosecuted for discrimination.

I don't belive people ought to be allowed to descriminate just because we are afraid to try and change people's minds about things. Who's being "live and let live" now?

Larry, I've divided this into smaller paragraphs for you. Sorry that was making it difficult for you.

I really appreciate the criticism.

 

[vraiblonde]

I have to disagree with you, Jimmy. I like it when business owners are upfront about their petty bigotries. Gives me the heads up so I don't accidently give them any of my money. I don't think we should make these people hide their hatred of gays, blacks, or anyone. They should say it loud and clear so I can make the decision whether to do business with them or not.

You coming to Christy's party?

 

[Ken King]

Jimmy, you said “Ken, you are adamantly against desecration of the flag. You find it personally offensive. So should someone seeking to make a political statement be tolerant of your beliefs on that matter?” As my beliefs are in alignment with the laws of our nation, should I tolerate the breaking of those laws or any law for that matter? No, I don’t have to, and no one else should for that matter, tolerate any action in violation of our laws.

You also said, "But that the head of that company is open enough about his racism that the black-would-be-employee is aware enough to choose NOT to work for them, that KKK CEO should be prosecuted for discrimination." As the prospective employee chose not to seek employment, how can that be discrimination? They were denied nothing in your example.

 

[Hessian]

Jimmy,
I can see that my position can provoke that question you raised....and as always, I'll try to explain, but that rarely gets anywhere (but I'll still try)

I want the kind of "tolerance" that nobody notices...the kind where peer pressure is used to maintain the good instead of promoting the bad. The kind where wacky, liberal ideas can be "outed" for what they are, not "accepted" as a "legitimate" alternative. Where traditions, patriotism, faith, and work ethic take priority over all other petty differences (Remember the quote from ML King on the mall?) Where we dump the idea that we are a salad and go back into the concept that we are a melting pot. Tolerance comes to an abrupt end when we "accept" things that are *immoral...and call them normal
*lazy...and call them ADD
*wild....and call them misunderstood
*bizarre...and call them innovative
*Vicious...and call them victims
*Stupid...and call them differently abled.
*Shallow...and call them deep.

Prayer in school: absolutely...not because we must "tolerate" it but because our Founders relied on it and our faith is what sustains this country and to remove it marked the beginning of a steady decline in America beginning in 1963.

 

[jimmy]

Hessian,

Your position makes sense to me. However, you are still basing it on a personal morality that is not necessarily shared by others in the melting pot/salad here. By the way, I actually like that idea of focusing more on uniting our cultures, instead of pointing out every difference.

However, I don't think that that means having all members of our society conform to one cultural morality or way of life. True, we have a culture of morality through our laws etc. but other than those guidelines which we agree to live by, I would question why yours should be the "common ground" found in this melting pot? I understand the strength of your convictions but you HAVE to know that not everyone in this country shares your views on morality, decency, faith, or things you find "immoral".

But since we all have to live together, how would you suggest we go about this transition from salad to melting pot? My idea would be to address differences as negligable. My idea would be incorporation rather than exctraction. By that, I mean, simply teaching history as history, with ALL it's parts, not dividing it into black, female, gay, etc.

I say the more we become tolerant of people's beliefs and lifestyles, so long as they aren't illegal or dangerous, and the more we stop looking down our noses at everyone who is different from us as immoral, the closer we come back to the melting pot from the salad.

I don't understand how you can advocate something like that and,yet, you see everyone as different from you. I don't see that many differences between myself and the world around me, because I'm not offended by the actions of everyone that lives differently from me. In fact, i'm only really offended by those who would condemn someone for living differently than they do.

Ken,

You're right. There would be no basis for legal action there. But, as I said, if a company CO was that open about their bigotry, I would applaud anyone that would take that on and MAKE a legal issue out of it. Tolerance I am for, but not tolerance of those who would seek to engage in discriminatory practices.

 

[jimmy]

Vrai,

Don't know about the party. I'll have to see what is on the menu for that weekend....could be a very interesting time...though I feel like I would be the youngest person there and probably embarass myself with my 'fresh from college' drinking practices...

 

[Larry Gude]

Way to go jimmy! They shoulda taught you that in college comp!

Here's another nugget for you: You are young and have that idealism that most of us had at your age. We are mostly older and some, like Ken King, horribly older.

Over time, you notice that what some try to call “unintended consequences” is merely a cover for what were bad ideas to begin with.

I’ll speak for all of us for just a moment because everyone knows I’m always right. Remember this: No one is right all the time.

 

[Bruzilla]

Great question Jimmy!

My opinion on this subject is that there is a definite difference between "Tolerance" and "Acceptance", and many in the public school systems and elsewhere (Hollywood) have tried very hard to blur that line. I have no problem with tolerance being taught, demonstrated, exampled, or otherwise covered as a part of a child's development at school. It's one big world, and we all have to live in it. Children need to learn that they will have to tolerate people of different colors, religions, beliefs, and sexual orientations... yes... even lawyers and soccer moms. And the child of hateful parents may only hear the voice of reason and tolerance at school.

But, most "Tolerance" classes are actually acceptance training. It isn't enough to tolerate some people, it is vital that you understand what motivates them, why their way of life is as good (or better) than yours, why you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss their way of life as one that you might want to follow, that you like them, and most importantly... that you approve of them. This is not tolerance, this is trying to get someone to accept and approve of other ways of life, and that's not what the schools should be doing. This is what most frequently leads to conflicts between parents and schools. You should teach kids to respect other people, not that it's ok to be gay, muslim, an Asian feminist Nazi, a black animal pro-life activist with a Hispanic surname, etc.

I tolerate homosexuals, Muslims, blacks, militia folks, gun control folks, etc., even though I do not agree with a lot of their beliefs, customs, or activities, nor accept them as a valid way to live. I do not feel the need to have a deep understanding of why any of these groups do things the way that they do. I don't really care, that's their business. They do their thing, and I do mine. And as long as we're not breaking the law, we should tolerate each other. You can vehemently disagree with another group's beliefs yet still tolerate them, and that's what schools should teach. They should not be trying to tell our kids that being homosexual is good, or the benefits of Black communities, or why being a black animal pro-life activist with a Hispanic surname is a great thing.

 

[jimmy]

Hey, Bru....there's nothing wrong with having an hispanic surname...

I agree with you for the most part. Acceptance is a personal choice that really shouldn't be taught in schools.

I, personally, am a lot more accepting of different people than some, but it's not for everyone. Tolerance, as you've nicely spelled out here, is a totally different matter which is pretty much protected and expected by law (first ammendment rights, anti-discrimination legislature).

On a personal level, I will try and convince people to be more tolerant of the views of other people and even accepting of ones that I believe should be acccepted.

However, I can't come up with a real good reason that acceptance should be taught by the schools so I think that's gonna be my position there.

And, Larry, I went to a liberal arts college....if I had wanted to write a paper using just one WORD they would have let me....english comp was NOT what you'd think it'd have been....

 

[jazz lady]

Originally posted by Larry Gude

I’ll speak for all of us for just a moment because everyone knows I’m always right. Remember this: No one is right all the time.

I'm confused... I thought CHRISTY was "Always Right"...

 

[Bruzilla]

I'm with you Jimmy. Tolerance can be taught at school, but parents should have the right to determine who/what they feel is acceptable, not the schools, or the government, or the media.

 

[vraiblonde]

"Yes, I went to a liberal arts college. Will that be for here or to go?"