Question Of The Day
Irradiated by LabRat
Why is it people who are some species of -ist are always so incredibly defensive of their right to not only be openly bigoted, but to have their bigotry accepted as a valid lifestyle choice by people who decry the -ism in question? I realize that nobody likes to be constantly hearing what a scumbag you are, but when your entire thing is going on and on about what scumbags (category) are, it sounds more than a little weird to hear what boils down to “WHY YES I HATE ALL THOSE FUCKERS AND I’LL SAY SO AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, AND YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT MY NOT ACCEPTING!”. The best theory I can come up with is that they’re painting the people calling them out as somehow hypocritical, but coming from a whole lot more hypocritical a position it doesn’t exactly carry a whole lot of sting.
Is it a “we’re here and we’re queer” sort of thing? Put a human face on bigotry, except from the opposite end? I know you’re here. If I didn’t know I certainly wouldn’t be ranting or referring disapprovingly to your ism. Putting your face on it doesn’t make it more appealing to me, it makes me regard you less well and start the countdown on my “how long I am going to put up with this person’s shit” clock. People who believe in universal tolerance of everyone’s traits and choices no matter what they are are actually quite rare- most people speaking up for some variant on tolerance are coming from the position that (category or behavior) isn’t actually their or your business and isn’t really hurting anyone, therefore it should be tolerated. Note that this is different from “should be embraced”- the principle of “whatever is not forbidden is mandatory” is for quantum physics, not human interaction.
The crusade for getting people to calmly accept your belligerent assholeness as just another pretty color in the human rainbow is one hell of a windmill to tilt at.
Related head-scratcher: people who can never stop going on about the crippling flaws of their home country but get really upset when someone calls them unpatriotic. If you truly dislike your country’s history, structure, and habits, how can being accused of not being proud and supportive of it be insulting rather than a neutral or pleasing description?
March 25th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I’m guessing that some people really don’t see a difference between coercive and non-coercive acts. Instead, they divide acts into “things that irritate me” and “things that don’t”. If I’m one of these bigots and I’m irritated by (say) two guys making out at the bus stop, I might feel perfectly justified in walking up to them and yelling about how they’re both going to burn in Hell for eternity. If they get offended, as far as I’m concerned we’re even (and they had it coming, because their behaviour irritated me). The fact that both my irritation and theirs was brought on by my inability to mind my own business is irrelevant.
That was an ugly little thought experiment; I’mna go fetch some brain detergent.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
On your related head-scratcher, this is actually something I can understand, to a degree. I’m not sure if I can reasonably put it into words without ending up in a self-contradictory mess, but I am drawn to think of how some of my most vitriolic hatred when it comes to TV or books is when I see something that used to be good change and betray me, or when I see something that’s right on the very edge of being perfect but subverts itself at every opportunity. And despite the vitriolic hatred, I can still, simultaneously, love the good parts.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:33 am
The principal of the school that canceled their prom to keep two lesbian kids out:
“I’ve been called every name known to man,” Wiygul said. “I’ve been called a bigot and homophobic.”
That poor brave man. Why can’t people see who the real victim is here?
March 26th, 2010 at 2:45 am
Oh, and I think most of the anti-America “patriots” want to draw the distinction that the like the idea of America in some vague “as long as it looks exactly like my ideal mushroom fairy kingdom” way, they just hate the people and institutions that currently exist in America.
So if you can imagine something that could exist between Canada and Mexico that you could approve of, clearly you’re a huge patriot.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:45 am
*that they like
March 26th, 2010 at 5:33 am
I think BluntObject largely nails it. I also wonder how much of the “tolerate my intolerance!” has been a by product of the change in PC culture in the last 30-40 years. I know that personally it irks the hell out of me when someone presumes to tell me what to think and embrace etc., usually while at least implying that I am a bad human for not. I know the temptation is to point out how they are every bit as hypocritical, and to throw in a little bit of dickery at the same time to subtly suggest they go away and leave me alone. I would imagine that the same process affects other people who get bullied in such a fashion, and their response probably depends a great deal on their devotion to individualism and whether or not they have been on the other side. As well as how much coffee they have had so far that morning, etc. Generally those pushing for tolerance and inclusion etc., in the college I went to and the company I work for at least put forward such mindlessly transparent arguments for various things that it is trivially easy to turn them around to justify any behavior or difference. So much so that those who are inclined to justify whatever bigotry can do so and feel good about it, because after all, they are using the same logic.
tl;dr : I suspect it is also due to the fact that the arguments for tolerance etc. tend to be so poorly constructed that they justify every behavior, and so are used that way.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:39 am
On bluntobject’s point of “some people really don’t see a difference between coercive and non-coercive acts” - I’ve seen that a lot when discussing government with leftists.
The same mentality decries a cut in welfare payments as the rich stealing from the poor. Or a cut in state funding of California schools as the students’ loss of a legitimate right. Or a tax cut as a ‘giveaway’ to the rich. The status quo, to them, describes property rights, and there’s no real difference between the right to control your land/salary, and the right to control your stream of tax money, or favorable regulation.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:02 am
Well damn, David and bluntobjects BOTH beat me to it… One interesting fact is that as gun lovers, we are painted with a very negative stereotype by those on the left who are in and of themselves, stereotypes for bad behavior… I always find that interesting… My philosophy is as long as you don’t rub my face in it, I won’t react; but get in my face, and all bets are off, and I DON’T play nice…
March 26th, 2010 at 8:37 am
The crusade for getting people to calmly accept your belligerent assholeness as just another pretty color in the human rainbow is one hell of a windmill to tilt at.
Childish and foolish perhaps, but logically it hangs together. If tolerance means putting up with shit that annoys you, then why shouldn’t their annoying shit be just as protected as everyone else’s? And if somebody argues that their bigotry isn’t worthy of protection, it’s a fair question to ask who gets to decide what’s worthy of toleration.
I agree that it’s unlikely to be a persuasive argument, but when viewed from a distance, it’s the logically correct one.
True story: I was sitting in a ‘town hall meeting’ to discuss the direction of my county and help develop a “Vision for 2020.” One of the things that consistently came up was that people wanted our community to be acknowledged as Diverse and Tolerant, and Welcoming of Others (yes, you could hear the Capital Letters when people spoke).
Always the contrarian (such a nice word for ‘argumentative crank’), I asked whether such a welcome extended to smart-assed gun-toting libertarian agnostic computer geeks, or if it was limited to nice young immigrant families and lesbians.
I thought Tolerance meant Tolerance, but it turns out that some Others are more acceptable than others.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:45 am
I see the point, but honestly it’s not what I was really talking about; I’ve had more than enough contacts with the not-really-tolerant who were more than happy to paint me as a fascist. I’ve been there, and I don’t find the reactions puzzling.
What I’m talking about are the weird trolls who come out of the framework on any article/post/whatever on some subject related to the object of their passions that really is “WELL I THINK FAGS/WOMEN/JEWS ARE STUPID AND EVIL AND…” and then act very much pained and persecuted when people react predictably. A first strike rather than a response to overweening “TOLERATE!”, and it always seems to be quite genuinely felt.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am
LR: I’m guessing that, in their minds, puking their wharrgarbl all over the forum in question is a response. Not necessarily to self-righteous Political Correctness(tm), but to the fact that someone annoyed them by being gay/female/Jewish in their presence. Or even merely by reminding them that gay/female/Jewish people exist.
It’s one hell of a self-absorbed attitude, which makes me wonder if The Last Psychiatrist has written something relevant.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
re: headscratcher
I think a lot of that comes from the fact that there’s a line between ‘I don’t agree with everything our government/society does’ (which is true for pretty much everybody, at least occasionally; it’s a fact of life in a democratic nation) and ‘I think everything our country does is bad’ (which is a childish and combative viewpoint).
The problem is that there’s not a lot of agreement about exactly where that line ought to be drawn. I know plenty of people who are patriots despite violently disliking the administration currently in power, but some people simply dislike the country itself.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
I think I know the type you’re talking about, Labrat. The kind of troll who shits in your comment section, and then gets mad when somebody rubs his nose in it instead of praising it.