intolerance...
Hmmm... Sometimes I really wonder about people, especially bloggers.
I make no bones about the fact that I'm not addicted to any particular political party since there is no party which matches my evolving personal philosophy. I'm fiscally conservative (small government, limited intervention, hate the nanny state), I believe strongly in personal rights and personal responsibilities but I am socially tolerant. I don't use the word 'progressive' because it has been hijacked by a political movement who seem determined to destroy society but that's a whole other subject.
Anyway, before I lose focus, I enjoy reading about and discussing politics but I also like reading and discussing other subjects as well... a wide range of subjects, in fact, but I've always like philosophy.
I read a thread on a blog which posed three moral conundrums, each with simple choice answers. A couple of people had written their answers and justifications thereof. I decided to post my opinion. The blogger challenged my opinion and we exchanged a couple of posts. I found some of the notions offered interesting but some didn't make sense to me so I said as much. Long story short, the blogger posted a rather rambling diatribe, suggesting I was putting words into the blogger's mouth and if I didn't like what I found, the blogger would prefer that I didn't come around.
I re-read my posts and the replies. Nope, I wasn't rude or offensive... but it certainly appeared this individual was intolerant of anyone disagreeing and there was emotional investment in the points which the blogger made so by disagreeing or dismissing those arguments, I was offending the individual. Being a good Canadian, I apologized and I suspect I won't bother going to that blog again. I didn't offend intentionally but that point is moot, I suppose.
Think got me thinking about intolerance. If there's one thing I can't stand it's intolerance. Yes, I appreciate the irony in that statement; it was written in good humour.
People in general and bloggers in particular seem to have a predisposition to be intolerant of anything/anyone they don't agree with or understand. At several blogs which I visit, it's not unusual for bloggers to make outrageously insulting replies and to engage in personal attacks. I don't generally engage in such activities. I'm no angel and I'm not above telling someone what I think of their idea(s) but I generally try to concentrate on the concept, not the person.
Blogging, with it's relative anonymity, tends to bring out the worst in people. Bulletin boards, forums and internet chat rooms are likewise afflicted. Keyboard tigers abound. Since this is still a relatively "new" form of communication and the generally harsh and subjective medium, it's natural to see some growing pains, I suppose. Emoticons give some graphic means of expressing non-verbal 'clues' but they're not always available.
I can't relate how tired I am of reading blogger bemoaning the lack of discussion or debate when they're completely intolerant of either discussion or debate. Then there's the all-knowing trolls who mock and deride the efforts of others to try to articulate their thoughts. Then there's the "chirpers" who chirp in a snarky comment and then disappear.
So what can one do or so to the intolerant to cause them to reassess their behaviour? I don't think there is a right answer. If I ever figure one out, I shall bottle the results and sell it.
As bloggers mature (eternal optimist) hopefully the level of communication will improve.
-Mac
I make no bones about the fact that I'm not addicted to any particular political party since there is no party which matches my evolving personal philosophy. I'm fiscally conservative (small government, limited intervention, hate the nanny state), I believe strongly in personal rights and personal responsibilities but I am socially tolerant. I don't use the word 'progressive' because it has been hijacked by a political movement who seem determined to destroy society but that's a whole other subject.
Anyway, before I lose focus, I enjoy reading about and discussing politics but I also like reading and discussing other subjects as well... a wide range of subjects, in fact, but I've always like philosophy.
I read a thread on a blog which posed three moral conundrums, each with simple choice answers. A couple of people had written their answers and justifications thereof. I decided to post my opinion. The blogger challenged my opinion and we exchanged a couple of posts. I found some of the notions offered interesting but some didn't make sense to me so I said as much. Long story short, the blogger posted a rather rambling diatribe, suggesting I was putting words into the blogger's mouth and if I didn't like what I found, the blogger would prefer that I didn't come around.
I re-read my posts and the replies. Nope, I wasn't rude or offensive... but it certainly appeared this individual was intolerant of anyone disagreeing and there was emotional investment in the points which the blogger made so by disagreeing or dismissing those arguments, I was offending the individual. Being a good Canadian, I apologized and I suspect I won't bother going to that blog again. I didn't offend intentionally but that point is moot, I suppose.
Think got me thinking about intolerance. If there's one thing I can't stand it's intolerance. Yes, I appreciate the irony in that statement; it was written in good humour.
People in general and bloggers in particular seem to have a predisposition to be intolerant of anything/anyone they don't agree with or understand. At several blogs which I visit, it's not unusual for bloggers to make outrageously insulting replies and to engage in personal attacks. I don't generally engage in such activities. I'm no angel and I'm not above telling someone what I think of their idea(s) but I generally try to concentrate on the concept, not the person.
Blogging, with it's relative anonymity, tends to bring out the worst in people. Bulletin boards, forums and internet chat rooms are likewise afflicted. Keyboard tigers abound. Since this is still a relatively "new" form of communication and the generally harsh and subjective medium, it's natural to see some growing pains, I suppose. Emoticons give some graphic means of expressing non-verbal 'clues' but they're not always available.
I can't relate how tired I am of reading blogger bemoaning the lack of discussion or debate when they're completely intolerant of either discussion or debate. Then there's the all-knowing trolls who mock and deride the efforts of others to try to articulate their thoughts. Then there's the "chirpers" who chirp in a snarky comment and then disappear.
So what can one do or so to the intolerant to cause them to reassess their behaviour? I don't think there is a right answer. If I ever figure one out, I shall bottle the results and sell it.
As bloggers mature (eternal optimist) hopefully the level of communication will improve.
-Mac
Labels: intolerance
posted by Mac at 10:29 PM
8 Comments:
I agree, Mac. You're linked.
Thanks, Jack.
Well said. While I'd love to say the intolerant only exist on "the other side" of the political scale, that would be a lie. We all need to check the mirror once in a while.
Awful, just awful.
ha, just kidding. Like the post. I'm guilty of some of those activities(although the chirping just on certain choice sites).
Thanks for the read!
Personally I think people are way too thin skinned. Tis the beauty of this form of communication. No contact ever. And if you don't like what someone has to say, argue,debate,discuss,dismiss,flame,ignore. Pretty simple to me. You fucking wankers are too,too sensitive. And that's just so 90's.
Thanks for your comments, folks.
Flynn, there's a certain amount of truth in what you say about thin skins but you either misunderstood or ignored the point about intolerance.
In the example I used in my essay, if I'd used whatever kind of rude language (as others had) it would have been tolerated... so long as I agree with the blogger's positions. As soon as I left the "script", I was challenged.
The blogger was intolerant of thoughts which challenged the opinions expressed and reacted emotionally. I could have continued to post but that would serve little purpose but to further upset the blogger which is hardly a good way to communicate my point as there would be very little bilateral communication if the blogger dismissed or ignored me.
Incidentally, I consider the type of language you've used in your post to be the lowest form of communication. I realise some people get a certain puerile pleasure in using epithets. If you lack the vocabulary or maturity to communicate politely, that's a shame and a sad reflection on you.
I'd like to suggest a different way to look at intolerance, which dictionary.com defines as "unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc." Let's say those 'contrary opinions' are those of a totalitarian megalomaniac like Adolf Hitler. Refusing to tolerate Nazism would, in my opinion, be a commendable stance to take. Likewise, I currently find the views expressed by Islam with regards to the expansion of Shar'ia law to the world, by force if necessary, to be an opinion that I am unwilling to tolerate. I am also unwilling to tolerate the segregation of the sexes, the reduction in the number of acceptable occupations for women, the concept of physically cloaking half the members of society, the concept of stoning for adultery, the concept of beheading, the concept of killing individuals who leave Islam, and most of all, the concept of religious leaders replacing out democratically elected representatives.
Some people use the term 'Islamophobia' to describe this attitude. I have a different word; IslamoRealist. I believe a realistic appraisal of what is currently going on in the world will lead one to realize we -- the Western democracies -- are currently under great threat.
As Mark Steyn points out in his excellent book America Alone, even if we do nothing, the astonishing birth-rate of Muslim communities will result in a Muslim Europe by 2050.
You say in your post you believe strongly in 'personal rights and responsibilities.' Well said. However, in these difficult times, I believe that to ensure we keep these rights, we must start to be more intolerant of the growing demands of Islam.
It's head scarves for soccer players today; it'll be screened pools for women bathers tomorrow, and religious representatives in Parliament the next day.
And the day after that?
Good post, Frank. Strangely enough, the intolerance I was talking about prefers to ignore the danger you're talking about...
Post a Comment
<< Home