OT: tolerance (was Re: Attachment test.)

[Fairlight]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:41:08AM -0400, after drawing runes in goat's blood,
Kenneth Brody cast forth these immortal, mystical words:
> On 3/22/2010 11:46 PM, Fairlight wrote:
> [...]
> > The case for arguing against zero tolerance is amusing to me in general.
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.

There is (in non-totalitarian regimes) a general feeling that zero
tolerance for some things is a good thing--especially if it gets popular
support enough to become policy.  So theoretically, if you're against an
accepted ZT policy, you're often against the results of a democratically
driven outcome.  But the irony is, many of the democratically driven (or
at least popular opinion-driven) ideologies tend to be overboard and just
plain silly--they're either stating the obvious and trying to legislate
morality (doesn't work, shouldn't be tried), or they're so proposterously
without basis that they don't deserve the benefit of acknowledgement.
Either way, if you argue against it, you're usually stating the obvious
that the sheeple have managed to ignore anyway.  It should just go without
saying that ZT policies don't need to be argued against--they're just
usually wrong, period.

There's a difference worth noting between a ZT policy and a technical
limitation.  Take the anti-HTML email thing...  I'd be for that, obviously.
I'm not going to back away from that stance.  But that's not a ZT policy
as such.  That's imposing a technical functionality limitation.  The
difference between the two is that one is an attempt to herd cats by means
of coercion of various forms, and the other is a case where you simply
make it outright impossible for something to occur by technical means that
require no further human intervention--the system regulates itself without
the need for tolerance/intolerance.  When I was on a server committee
for my Call of Duty 4 clan, we tried both methods of enforcement.  The best
of the admins and I both agreed that the more you can make the technology
enforce things for you without human intervention, the better.  There's a
huge difference between -trying- to enforce a policy of any kind at a human
level, and "that's just the way things work".  It may seem like a fine hair
to split, since someone has to implement the technological barrier based on
a "policy" to begin with, but I really think that once you cross from human
enforcement to technological barrier, the nature shifts.  I've seen it
happen too many times to not think so.

As someone that's bucked a lot of systems, I just find it grimly amusing
when people want to argue against a -policy- (especially a ZT one, in
this PC day and age), as opposed to just dealing with something that's
technically implemented so that it's infeasible.  The former is a losing
battle 90%+ of the time.  Can't say I blame them for trying, and quite
often those speaking up have the higher moral ground--but it's usually a
losing cause, even though it also usually amounts to nothing more than
speaking truth and reason.  Saying you can argue against ZT policies is
therefore, to me, like saying you can argue that the sky isn't bright
magenta.  Of course it isn't...but that won't stop the sheeple from
claiming it is, if enough of them have banded together in stupidity to
issue an edict that it is and that you dare not think otherwise under some
penalty or another.  

Perhaps I meant more sardonically ironic than amusing.

> What's wrong with "you have a right to be stupid/ignorant/racist/whatever, 
> and to think and say your stupid/ignorant/racist/whatever things, but I have 
> a right to call you out on it, and point out in excruciating detail just how 
> stupid/ignorant/racist/whatever you really are"?

You had to ask... *laugh* Okay, but my way of thinking about it gets a
little involved.  You -did- ask... :)

This is a three-layer deep system, as I see it:

Group A - Exists and has some trait.
Group B - Exists and feels that Group A is wrong/off/inferior, etc.
Group C - Exists to defend not only Group A, but the very principle that
          any groups that would ordinarily be at Group A status should be
          left alone by any Group B type people.

Now, let's take the case I've most often seen exemplified--bigotry of
various forms.

You've got "target group" (race, orientation, religion, whatever kind of
group) in Group A's spot.  You've got those that dislike those people in
Group B.  You have a growing majority in Group C that preach tolerance for
all Group A type people.

Then you get a bigot (Group B) making a comment.  Group C immediately
jumps on them for being "wrong" (whether there's basis in fact or not),
simply for being intolerant.  What this attacking of the bigot does is
shift the attacked bigot and those attacking them each down a level.
The Group B bigot is suddenly in a Group A situation--their "thing" or
"whatever" is being bigoted.  Actually, they're there from the start--their
viewpoint is always their "thing"--but the act of being castigated by Group
C people effectively highlights this fact.  What it also does, however,
is turn Group C people into Group B people that are attacking Group A
people--just ones they don't have a problem with attacking.  At which point
we have "Bigots against Bigots", which is an ironically recursive loop.
Geoff Tate wrote a deliciously ironic line in one song on Queensryche's
"Operation: Mindcrime" that goes, "Erradicate the facists..."  The irony
never fails to hit me.  And this is essentially more of the same irony.

Essentially, "tolerance for all" would theoretically be fine, if it were
applied evenly across the board.  The problem is, in most cases I've seen
over the years, it isn't.  Group C would have you believe that they're
above it all, but they aren't.  They're no more leaving the Group B people
alone than they want Group B to leave Group A people alone.

In the end, everyone's a Group A of -some- sort.  The true nature of "live
and let live" would be to just leave everyone at Group A, and stop drawing
attention to -any- differentiating qualities--simply accept people as they
are.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way, and people keep
reducing themselves and eroding their higher moral ground by engaging in
this sort of moral caste system war.

So to answer your question, there's nothing wrong with "letting" someone be
themselves, but what's wrong with being able to call someone on something
is the fact that it creates Group B, which necessitates (in theory) the
existence of Group C to "fight (or right) the wrongs" of the former.  The
real solution is to simply accept that everyone is a Group A at heart,
that not all Group A's are inherently good or bad, and to just leave well
enough alone.  It's not a case of right/wrong traits having different
levels of justification for being called out--in fact, the reality is
that no trait should be singled out, right or wrong.  The second you call
any Group A on something, whether it's a positive, negative, or neutral
quality, you create Groups B and C, and the vicious cycle commences.  So
the right to be "whatever" I'll agree with.  But the right to cite people
for being "whatever" essentially is a destructive process no matter what
the "whatever" is...and shouldn't be a right at all.  If someone calls
someone for being intolerant, they're really no better than the intolerant
person, and indeed descend to their level.  That's what's wrong with (what
I took away from) what you said, IMHO.  There shouldn't -be- a right
to denigrate anyone, technically--even for being wrong or stupid.  Not
ideally.  The second you grant the right to denigrate for any reason, you
lose control over its use/misuse/appropriation.

Live and let live might actually work fine...if everyone would just shut
up about it and -do- it.  The problem is, it has to work 100% across the
board, equally, or it degenerates into a huge morass of hypocrisy when the
extra two groups are invoked.  The whole system working smoothly relies
upon keeping everyone, right or wrong, at the only single layer that should
exist--Group A, everyone has some "thing/whatever".  Anything beyond that
single layer invokes a moral caste system destructive to peaceful harmony.

I think Bill Vermillion put it pretty eloquently one time we discussed
tolerance, and he said (I'm paraphrasing) that tolerance was essentially
useless rubbish, what it needs to come down to is simply mutual respect.
He had a valid point, IMHO.

> I don't think you need to worry about anyone on this list calling you 
> "politically correct".

If they do, they need a reality check.  :)

In an effort to condense the thread...

I saw JP's note as well.  JP, I actually like that quote the more I reread
it.  There is truth there.  Thanks for sharing, JP.  That ranks up there
with many of the gems Bill Campbell has pointed out over the years that
really make me think.

Which point puzzles me, though.  Most things like that go way back to
historical figures.  One wonders whatever happened to our civilisation.
It's not just the eloquence of speech that's diminished drastically over
time, but seemingly the clarity of thought and willingness to actually
think deeply have also declined.  Maybe I don't read enough non-fiction,
but you don't hear things like that even being quoted of people that were
born in the last 50-100 years very often, if at all (I can't think of a
single case).  Just reinforces my opinion of how stupid we've become as a
society.  There's a lot of depth gone missing.

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis,