SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It has been a little while now that this fledgling community has been around and it remains one of my favorite stories about communities. A splinter of a much larger community took it upon themselves to challenge the rest and make a move to a new home. Shedding the shackles that were being placed on them was a bold move, but one that has been fantastic.
The community here is great, but here is my question. Overall, we are amazingly tolerant of others, of the choices they make, and of their beliefs. I would then be curious, if we are such a tolerant group, how do we address intolerance in our ranks? I recently came across what I can only say filled me with pity and sadness. I find it saddening that in this day and age, and especially in this group, there are still such hate-filled people.
But this poses a question: how does a group that is tolerant deal with intolerance within it's ranks? Does our acceptance of others extend to accepting someone that has thoughts and beliefs which are far from the norm within this community, or is there a limit placed on how far from our own values a member of the community may be?
(Score: 1) by velex on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:46PM
It all depends on context of course. One thing I was surprised to encounter on my latest short flirtation with men's rights activist groups is that being openly trans there is the equivalent of walking in with a big sign that says "I'm a socialist feminist!" I had expected, "no, you're not a trans woman or whatever, you're just a man who likes skirts and estrogen," not that! Clearly, the men's rights movement does not have the Correct Opinion from my point of view. But what else does it have to do with me? I just left, and I haven't been called a feminist since! (Me? A feminist! lol)
I think I'm with GPs quotes, although I still need to get around to reading the related works. For me, the line gets crossed at affirmative action, that is, policy that requires that individual actors take a course of action different from the course of action that each individual actor has identified as the best action to take in their own enlightened self-interest.
I suppose to put another way, even though I disagree with them, perhaps there is a place for cis woman only scholarships that might encourage more women in tech careers. After all, I'm not the person funding them. Not my money, not my problem. However, some of the proposals that have come out in favor of penalizing male educators and students for the lack of female interest in tech I find just plain wrong. An actor should never be held accountable for the actions of other actors.
Maybe that's a useful framework for pondering whether tolerance, in some tortured logical sense, means tolerating intolerance. The men's rights movement maintains that I'm guilty of intolerance, because I'm a feminist, because all trans women are feminists, Q.E.D. I maintain that the men's rights movement is guilty of intolerance because they're judging me based on the actions of others (and some odd assumptions about what being a trans woman is). We can at least both agree that feminists are guilty of intolerance!
The question is: which actors are asking for policy that would prevent actors from making decisions that are in their enlightened self-interest in certain scenarios? I'm not asking for policy requiring the MRM to accept me as a trans woman who is not a feminist, and the MRM is not requesting policy (as much as they might like to see such policy) that would make gender transition impossible for me on the basis that completing gender transition would make me a feminist. However, we do see feminists requesting policy that would make merely questioning feminism into a hate crime!
Therefore, it is only feminism in the little universe of me, the MRM, and feminism, that is guilty of intolerance in a way that should be punished. Except, how should it be punished?
Well, let's assume that such a law does go into effect that would make publicly criticizing feminism a hate crime, and that based on some future post I make here questioning feminism, I'm promptly taken to the clink. Well, let's assume that judicial review finds that the law is actually intolerant. I have been harmed, so the individuals we can reasonably identify as being responsible for drafting, promulgating, and approving the law (not just the individual congress critters who voted yes) should be punished.
So, I believe my position is that tolerance must not tolerate intolerance, but only for a sufficiently well thought-out definition of intolerance.