A journal entry via Hal Sparks

[Krugersgirl]

(posted Dec 19th)


hi everyone!

In the spirit of the holidays I would like to send out a special message of hope!
I hope... that we can stop striving for tolerance!

I have had it up to my adam's apple with this retarded notion of Tolerance!
Tolerance for Gays, Jew, Blacks, hippies, addicts, diabetics, Fat people, Aenorexics, The right, the left, Religious and sexual preference. It's stupid.

In L.a the holocaust Museum is called the Museum of Tolerance! What kind of crap is that?

After all what is tolerance?

Isn't tolerance really just "putting up" with something? You don't like it. You don't agree with it but you let it go on because want your rights recognized too so... a rule of law, social and political, must be drafted. You tolerate it. Tolerance is not a healing attitude. If anything it's increases the separation it is supposed to elminate.

Is this how low the bar of human integration is set? Is this all we can shoot for? Tolerance?

Tolerance is a wall! What we need are bridges.

How about acceptance?
The recognition that we often hate in others what we see in ourselves?

How about Unity?
the admission that we are all cut from the same cloth

Inclusion?
A welcoming attitude instead one of disengagement?

Everytime I drive past the Museum of Tolerance I want to tear the sign down..

I don't tolerate the Jews I know.. I love them... they are my friends... tolerance has nothing to do with it. I don't tolerate Gay people. I accept them. I know they deserve every right that I have! and on and on....

So enough with the tolerance! I say only when we are stripped of the idea of simple tolerance will we get to the place of connection... of mutual respect... love

<font color="#007FFF" size="1">[ February 11, 2005 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Krugsgirl ]</font>

[MrClarinet]

Hmmm, nice sentiment but I'm not really sure about it.

After all, I accept that everyone has the right to vote, yet I don't have to accept their political beliefs. Why should I have to accept a right wing perspective if I'm left wing? It isn't about acceptance in this case, but tolerance- not agreeing, but tolerating someones beliefs. If that is what I expect of myself, then it's all I can really ask of others- if they don't like it, tolerate it.

In which case, the Jewish museum has to be called The Museum of Tolerance. I'm not just talking about anti-semites. I'm an atheist. Would it be fair to make me accept religious beliefs that I don't have? Of course not. But I should be expected to tolerate it (which I do).

If he means "accept" as in "accept that it exists" then I think that's just a synonym of toleration. In which case, it's just a nicer way of saying tolerate. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world" as young Wittgenstein once said.

He was jewish you know.

The homosexuality thing is different. I can accept homosexuality because there is nothing I find wrong with it. But to ACCEPT a religious or political perspective, I have to argue that one would have to see an element of truth in it. To accept is to acknowledge truth or reality in a situation, tolerance is to overcome your prejudice or dislike and ACCEPT THE RIGHT to express that opinion. In that sense I accept the right of my friends to express their opinions, I accept my friends as individuals with rights, I accept them as people I love, but I don't accept the truth of what they say.

So really, isn't it all tolerance anyway?

Like I say, it's all semantics.

<font color="#007FFF" size="1">[ February 12, 2005 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Mr Clarinet ]</font>

[DAVID HESS]

"tolerance is to overcome your prejudice or dislike and ACCEPT THE RIGHT to express that opinion. In that sense I accept the right of my friends to express their opinions, I accept my friends as individuals with rights, I accept them as people I love, but I don't accept the truth of what they say."


My sentiments exactly. Sorry Krugsgrl, I can't deliniate between what Sparks means and what he says he means. I find nothing wrong with tolerance...look up the dictionary definition. Maybe he's really talking about spiritual growth and if that's the case then he has to get his language right. Condesention is one thing, tolerance/acceptance is quite another. His sentiments are well meaning, his 'political correctness' is another. He might play a 'gay', but he doesn't know what it is to be gay and he should not over step his bounds by speaking as a gay...Just my thoughts.

[MrClarinet]

I didn't even know who he was. I expected a good kicking from the board actually. It's not a wise thing to criticise because you can come across as a nazi. I'm a Philosophy lecturer, so to me thinking before you speak is something incredibly important- and not doing so is incredibly dangerous. I just wanted to point out that tolerance should not be condemned because it isn't a negative thing.

Thanks for not burning me.

[Krugersgirl]

You're both right. The word has actually blended into the hate itself. I guess as we can be the products of our enviornment, so can words/ motions, sound., hamsters, etc. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] That's how desensitized my generation and beyond is. Perfect example.

<font color="#007FFF" size="1">[ February 13, 2005 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Krugsgirl ]</font>

[Krugersgirl]

His sentiments are well meaning, his 'political correctness' is another. He might play a 'gay', but he doesn't know what it is to be gay and he should not over step his bounds by speaking as a gay...Just my thoughts.[/QB]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is just what the Republican Party would say if they were being asked of any kind of liberal thinking, trying to trip things up. A Catch 22. I like to think most of the human race can try and walk in someone else's shoes, and whatever their opinion is, well, that's what it is. It's the hope that the subject matter has been studied. We want out teachers to be "right".
Homosexuality as far as "speaking for". When you think, just how many people are willing to speak out about tolerance, learning, acceptance,against the mass opinion(s)....If you think in those terms of what people are up against, what it means to be a leader, voice. Anyone need a history lesson on Martin Luther King? People base their mindset on their knowledge of the subject. We as a society (especially now in this day and age) can study human emotions and express them, feel them, protest, ban and dictate. Does this mean that if I go to jail for a night, I have a clue as to what if feels like to be behind bars for a week, a year, life. No. But I would have some ground to stand on, as opposed to having a concept. So how can you say he's overstepping his bounds when he's studied the gay lifestyle through and around his profession. I agree with his opinions. I feel he's right. Just because I buy into those beliefs/opinions/"facts", doesn't make him or I right. It just means, that he he has expressed knowledge of the subject. The bottom line is who we choose to listen to in our society, and make our own minds up.

-

And Welcome to the board Mr. C!! [img]graemlins/party.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rainbow.gif[/img]

<font color="#007FFF" size="1">[ February 13, 2005 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Krugsgirl ]</font>

[MrClarinet]

Thanks for the welcome KrugsGirl.

I don't think the issue is really whether or not he's gay or merely acting gay, or how much information a person has. Personally, I find it is best to tolerate something until you have enough information to know if it is harmful or not (innocent until proven guilty, I guess). Alexander Solzhienitsyn (apologies on the spelling) was right, I think, when he said it's better to err with mercy than undue punishment. In that way, I think condemning something out of ignorance is worse than allowing something to go on out of naivety (though both are bad). Information to whatever extent brings what is hidden into our understanding so we can make judgements. As sad as it sounds, that is all we can live by- our judgements. Even the most liberal of us judges, we just have to hone our skills so we can be fair.

So that kinda goes back to what I was saying before, which is what the real problem with the journal was- it was suggesting that tolerance isn't good enough. I'm not sure he understands the implications of what he's saying. Not being tolerant can go two ways- firstly we can all become ignorant and selfish, or secondly we can all be ultra-egalitarian and accept every single perspective totally. If we should not accept/deny everything, then all we are doing is putting up with it when we don't like it (which is tolerance). This means that we should either be selfish (in an unhappy state of nature scenario) or we would have absolutely no freedom. We would have no right to say what we liked and disliked because we would need to have 100% acceptance.

Personally I think people misunderstand their rights. Yes we have freedom of speech- and it is an amazing right to have. However, if you wish to speak freely based on your right to, you have to remember that responsibility comes with it, as well as the right to be protected from offense. So people can disagree with whatever opinions they like, and they can have the nastiest, most unpleasant political beliefs they want (as is their right) as long as they express them in a non-violent, non-threatening and responsible manner.

[DAVID HESS]

[img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Seems to be a lot of love flying around on this wonderfully made up Hallmark day...It doesn't matter, really and that's what I want to address. It's what's in your heart. I think Sparks had it right when he referred to [img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img] , what I don't think he understands is how much heart is ruled by the head until we are able to disconnect and use both independently. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img] Yes, the light bulb has to go off in humankind before we can pass judgement on epistemological references. Tolerance needs to be acted out by deeds not given credibility in a lecture hall, by journaling or even on a message board. Like Harry Truman said, 'I'm from Missouri, show me'. Thanks to both of you, you've helped make V-Day a little more important by your selfless outpouring of love.
David