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.
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.