To be fair, a person can be highly upset about Trump and uncomfortable (but much less so) about the transgender bathroom thing. Just a reminder that it’s not a binary world and people are allowed to be imperfect.
Help me clarify - if I have no problem with trans people I’m not a bigot in that way, right? But what if I’m also fine with people who “feel weird” about the concept - am I a bigot for allowing that it’s okay that their evolution is still ongoing, or are they bigots for not having reached perhaps your level of enlightenment yet? It seems kind of like the school of thought that says “everybody with more money than me is a rich bastard.”
Tolerance is a social contract: if all parties abide by it and tolerate the others, it holds. But if a party breaks it by denying some other (compliant) party tolerance, they forfeit their own right to receiving tolerance. They must not be tolerated, if that social contract is to be upheld.
Bigotry and tolerance are opposing forces. You cannot value one without rejecting the other. Bigotry must be as repulsive to you as tolerance is important. If you’re fine with bigots, that means tolerance isn’t that important to you.
From the perspective of those on the receiving end of bigotry, that looks a lot like enabling the bigots: if you could take a stance against it, but won’t, you’re complacent at best and complicit at worst. “I don’t care enough about you to compromise my unwillingness to take a stance.”
That isn’t the same as people who grew up with rigid gender norms (like most of us) and are in the progress of deprogramming. You can despise the mentality they were raised with, but if they’re actively trying to separate from it, that hate doesn’t need to extend to them. Nobody takes issue with people trying to change for the better.
We take issue with the raging mask-off “I’d rather creep on kids and elect a rapist than allow transgender kids to use the validating bathroom” bigots, which is what the post was about. They’re not “in an evolution”, bigotry is a part of their identity.
If and when they change course, they’ll fall into the previous group and we’ll be happy to help them. But until then, they’re the enemy, and anyone justifying their bigotry is an enabler.
Ahh, so the “Why should I pay for your healthcare” mindset is alive and well in the tolerance world. Pat on the head.
I’m “fine” with understanding that attitudes can be temporary and people can grow. We’re all born with human impulses that include a fear of the unknown, which we handle in our own way. Hopefully you’ll eventually outgrow your need to divide the world into people you condemn and people you haven’t found a reason to condemn yet.
Like I said, it’s not a binary world - meaning that people come in lots more categories than bigot and non-bigot. IMO it’s like you understand algebra so you’re filing people who don’t under “Irrevocably Stupid”, and also yelling at anybody who doesn’t do the same.
I’ll say it. The poster you were responding to is a bigot. ‘Tolerance of bigotry’ is itself bigotry, as it breaks the social contract of tolerance in the same way that bigotry does. By validating bigots, you are showing the minorities they target that you accept the bigotry against them and causing the same kind of harm as the bigot did in the first place.
To be fair, a person can be highly upset about Trump and uncomfortable (but much less so) about the transgender bathroom thing. Just a reminder that it’s not a binary world and people are allowed to be imperfect.
We are all aware that not all bigots love Trump.
Help me clarify - if I have no problem with trans people I’m not a bigot in that way, right? But what if I’m also fine with people who “feel weird” about the concept - am I a bigot for allowing that it’s okay that their evolution is still ongoing, or are they bigots for not having reached perhaps your level of enlightenment yet? It seems kind of like the school of thought that says “everybody with more money than me is a rich bastard.”
Tolerance is a social contract: if all parties abide by it and tolerate the others, it holds. But if a party breaks it by denying some other (compliant) party tolerance, they forfeit their own right to receiving tolerance. They must not be tolerated, if that social contract is to be upheld.
Bigotry and tolerance are opposing forces. You cannot value one without rejecting the other. Bigotry must be as repulsive to you as tolerance is important. If you’re fine with bigots, that means tolerance isn’t that important to you.
From the perspective of those on the receiving end of bigotry, that looks a lot like enabling the bigots: if you could take a stance against it, but won’t, you’re complacent at best and complicit at worst. “I don’t care enough about you to compromise my unwillingness to take a stance.”
That isn’t the same as people who grew up with rigid gender norms (like most of us) and are in the progress of deprogramming. You can despise the mentality they were raised with, but if they’re actively trying to separate from it, that hate doesn’t need to extend to them. Nobody takes issue with people trying to change for the better.
We take issue with the raging mask-off “I’d rather creep on kids and elect a rapist than allow transgender kids to use the validating bathroom” bigots, which is what the post was about. They’re not “in an evolution”, bigotry is a part of their identity.
If and when they change course, they’ll fall into the previous group and we’ll be happy to help them. But until then, they’re the enemy, and anyone justifying their bigotry is an enabler.
Ahh, so the “Why should I pay for your healthcare” mindset is alive and well in the tolerance world. Pat on the head.
I’m “fine” with understanding that attitudes can be temporary and people can grow. We’re all born with human impulses that include a fear of the unknown, which we handle in our own way. Hopefully you’ll eventually outgrow your need to divide the world into people you condemn and people you haven’t found a reason to condemn yet.
Yes, being tolerating bigotry makes you a bigot.
Like I said, it’s not a binary world - meaning that people come in lots more categories than bigot and non-bigot. IMO it’s like you understand algebra so you’re filing people who don’t under “Irrevocably Stupid”, and also yelling at anybody who doesn’t do the same.
Your question makes no sense.
When did I say you were a bigot?
When did I say I was enlightened?
I’ll say it. The poster you were responding to is a bigot. ‘Tolerance of bigotry’ is itself bigotry, as it breaks the social contract of tolerance in the same way that bigotry does. By validating bigots, you are showing the minorities they target that you accept the bigotry against them and causing the same kind of harm as the bigot did in the first place.
Obviously. That’s why we’re in this “bathroom” situation to begin with.
whoosh