What does "tolerance" mean now? (free speech, school, gay people)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The uproar about political correctness is coming at the same time that the white male dominant establishment is no longer anywhere near as dominant. American culture is reaching a degree of stasis. And all too many Whites are figuratively ****ting their pants because they are beginning to realize that they're no longer in control. They're not being controlled, but they're also not in control. And so now, when Blacks and Latinos are making their stands -- which is no different than the White dominants did in the past -- it bothers the heck out of the people who have lost power to the point of some degree of equality. And that is exactly what the anti-Obama rhetoric is mostly about (to the degree that's it's beyond the normal competition between Democrats and Republicans.
And frankly, it's about time.
Speaking as an 62-year-old traditionalist "Anglo" female, I think the fact many older Anglos are angry is not about control, but about losing our way of life that we had enjoyed for centuries due to us being the majority by far. I think that most people (although certainly not all!) like to be with people who are much like themselves -- who speak the same language and have the same manners and "values" (work hard and support yourself, for example), and whose religion be the "norm". I could go on and on in explaining what I mean, but as a shortcut, just think of the typical family TV show of 1966 vs. the typical family TV show of 2016. Now before I continue, I willingly admit that there was a LOT of intolerance, injustice, racism, hatred, bigotry, etc. 50 years ago that was just wrong, wrong, WRONG -- but this post is to address the fact that I disagree with your view that the current Anglo anger is about loss of control.
The fact is that with the possible exception of some very large cities, Anglos are still in control for the most part, and this will probably be the case until most of us dinosaurs are dead, so I don't think that most of us are bothered by lack of control as much as by the fact (or perhaps feeling) that we are increasingly being told that our way of life is WRONG and the indisputable fact that our "market share", so to speak, is being eroded. Many of us -- and, again, certainly not all of us -- do not want to live in a multicultural community . . . but this is what is being forced upon many of us.
Now, before I continue, I am definitely not against, nor do I have any hatred for, anyone of a different race from my own, people in the LGBTQ community, people from other countries, people of other religions, etc. living in the U.S. or even in my immediate neighborhood if they accept the mores of the majority of the people living in that neighborhood so far as not doing anything to disturb the general peace and culture of the majority of the people living there. (And, yes, I DO realize that I am being hypocritical here when I think about what my ancestors did to the people THEY displaced. I am filled with shame over that, and I am just thankful that, as far as I know, none of my ancestors were slave holders, at least.) I also realize what we "traditionalist Anglos" feel, think and do will have absolutely no bearing on what is happening, and will continue to happen, regarding the demographics of the U.S. I am well aware that probably within 25 years, the Non-Hispanic White will NOT be in the majority in the U.S.
[Some figures here: In 2013, 62.6% of people identified themselves as Non-Hispanic White, but that included people from the Middle East who, as of 2014, comprised 3.1% of U.S. residents -- so today, the percentage of "European whites" is about 57%, give or take a couple of percentage points. In 1960, the percentage of NHWs was 85%!]
So, yes, people like myself do realize that we are being "taken over" by people who do not share our culture, etc., and many of us are not happy about it, but for most of us, I think that it is not so much a matter of lack of control as it is a frustration with feeling forced to give up our culture, our "home" -- which I am fairly sure is something that the Native Americans felt when WE were the invaders. So, yes, I might agree that "turnabout is fair play" and "what goes around comes around", etc. -- but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Yes, we WILL be forced to either accept the changes in demographics -- but, to repeat, that doesn't mean I have to like it!
Last edited by katharsis; 01-07-2016 at 07:47 AM..
There is some danger of a slippery slope here. One bakery refusing to serve some people (gays, jews, women?) is no big deal as long as these people have options. But what about two bakeries? Three? Most? All?
As a society, we have some responsibility to make sure our fringe members are still able to lead their lives without being discriminated to the point of serious disadvantage. What if the majority of bakeries decide not to serve a group, lets say, women with short hair. This is obviously a lifestyle choice that these women can change. These women can continue living with their short hair and have significant difficulties buying their bread or move somewhere else. Maybe a community of short haired women. Are we ok with that?
This is obviously a ridiculous example, but in reality we are asking people who *cannot* easily change their life to appease the bakers. As a society, I think it is our responsibility to make sure that if you want to operate something essential like a bakery you have to tolerate all members of society.
Smoking is a separate issue - second hand smoke is a probable hazard to bystanders. A gay person is not a probable hazard to bystanders.
Now, if you want to form a micro-society like a purple griffon club that only allows divorced men in, that's perfectly ok too, religious freedom and all.. we just can't allow the purple griffons to take over public services, like public toilets.
I hardly would consider a bakery to be essential. Are you saying you cannot exist without bakeries?
Well, with all due respect to your profundity, words have meaning which are definitive. We don't get to pick and choose what they mean. When the law declares that a business owner must serve/hire homosexuals/minorities/cross-dressers, etc., that is in fact being forced to do something. The alternative is to to give up his business. That isn't a choice, and we both know that.
Words used to have meaning, but they don't have as much meaning anymore. You might say the government is an exception to this, but even the government picks and chooses now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
My niece left her husband and two small children to live with a female partner. My sister "tolerates" this. She tells her daughter she loves her, sends her birthday and Christmas presents, and welcomes her at the house any time, with or without her partner. My niece is not satisfied; she wants "acceptance." She said that unless & until Mom openly accepts her lifestyle and views the partner as a full-fledged spouse and member of the family, she wants nothing to do with Mom.
This is another good example of why I started this thread. The word "tolerance" is used now when it seems like the expectation is more along the lines of "activism". I think tolerance in the old-fashioned sense of the word is achievable and expected in American society. But given the arguably insurmountable divide in this country over cultural and social issues, relatively small advocacy groups will be hard-pressed to achieve universal acceptance.
The uproar about political correctness is coming at the same time that the white male dominant establishment is no longer anywhere near as dominant. American culture is reaching a degree of stasis. And all too many Whites are figuratively ****ting their pants because they are beginning to realize that they're no longer in control. They're not being controlled, but they're also not in control. And so now, when Blacks and Latinos are making their stands -- which is no different than the White dominants did in the past -- it bothers the heck out of the people who have lost power to the point of some degree of equality. And that is exactly what the anti-Obama rhetoric is mostly about (to the degree that's it's beyond the normal competition between Democrats and Republicans.
And frankly, it's about time.
As always, you cannot criticise Obama on his record without the race card coming out. Any anti Obama position is just 'rhetoric' to the left.
Your arguement is ridiculous.
Speaking as an 62-year-old traditionalist "Anglo" female, I think the fact many older Anglos are angry is not about control, but about losing our way of life that we had enjoyed for centuries due to us being the majority by far. I think that most people (although certainly not all!) like to be with people who are much like themselves -- who speak the same language and have the same manners and "values" (work hard and support yourself, for example), and whose religion be the "norm". I could go on and on in explaining what I mean, but as a shortcut, just think of the typical family TV show of 1966 vs. the typical family TV show of 2016. Now before I continue, I willingly admit that there was a LOT of intolerance, injustice, racism, hatred, bigotry, etc. 50 years ago that was just wrong, wrong, WRONG -- but this post is to address the fact that I disagree with your view that the current Anglo anger is about loss of control.
The fact is that with the possible exception of some very large cities, Anglos are still in control for the most part, and this will probably be the case until most of us dinosaurs are dead, so I don't think that most of us are bothered by lack of control as much as by the fact (or perhaps feeling) that we are increasingly being told that our way of life is WRONG and the indisputable fact that our "market share", so to speak, is being eroded. Many of us -- and, again, certainly not all of us -- do not want to live in a multicultural community . . . but this is what is being forced upon many of us.
Now, before I continue, I am definitely not against, nor do I have any hatred for, anyone of a different race from my own, people in the LGBTQ community, people from other countries, people of other religions, etc. living in the U.S. or even in my immediate neighborhood if they accept the mores of the majority of the people living in that neighborhood so far as not doing anything to disturb the general peace and culture of the majority of the people living there. (And, yes, I DO realize that I am being hypocritical here when I think about what my ancestors did to the people THEY displaced. I am filled with shame over that, and I am just thankful that, as far as I know, none of my ancestors were slave holders, at least.) I also realize what we "traditionalist Anglos" feel, think and do will have absolutely no bearing on what is happening, and will continue to happen, regarding the demographics of the U.S. I am well aware that probably within 25 years, the Non-Hispanic White will NOT be in the majority in the U.S.
...
So, yes, people like myself do realize that we are being "taken over" by people who do not share our culture, etc., and many of us are not happy about it, but for most of us, I think that it is not so much a matter of lack of control as it is a frustration with feeling forced to give up our culture, our "home" -- which I am fairly sure is something that the Native Americans felt when WE were the invaders. So, yes, I might agree that "turnabout is fair play" and "what goes around comes around", etc. -- but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Yes, we WILL be forced to either accept the changes in demographics -- but, to repeat, that doesn't mean I have to like it!
I enjoyed reading your post, and thanks for calmly stating your views. But actually I think you sort of restated my position, but perhaps the difference is I appeared to be speaking of CONTROL (cap case), while you are speaking of control (small case). Just check out the sections of your post that I highlighted above.
I'm not talking about having a Black president or governor or mayor or Congress, as much as I am talking about the same old assumptions no longer controlling lives. I'm just slightly older than you, and I think back to certain assumptions about life that could be made in my own profession. Growing up in small town American back in the 1950s, there was a 0% chance that my next teacher or principal was going to be Black. In all of my teacher-education courses in college in liberal NYS (during the time of Nelson Rockefeller) there was not a single Black teacher candidate. During my first 3 years in education in western NYS, not a single Black colleague in the schools where I taught. Shift ahead to the late 1970s and Maryland where I moved -- multiple Black teachers and counselors and administrators. Shift ahead to today in Virginia from where I retired, and there are a sizable number of Black administrators. Think of television or movies in the 1950s; how many Blacks as compared to today? Sports? All the "controlling assumptions". Think about our current President. It's likely the next President or Vice President will be a woman or Latino. So I'm not talking about some official controlling us, I'm talking about the assumptions that control our lives; there has been a total shift.
Tolerance is just that and I don't know where people are getting these ideas that liberals are forcing or wanting to force people to do more than be respectful of others and their choices. Is it because we want laws for those people? Because we are against discrimination? Because we believe certain people, like transgenders, should be treated equally, be a protected class and offered the same rights and protections as everyone else? That is just creating and extending equality, and it's not forcing you to do anything. You aren't required to be friends with transgenders, you won't be forced to marry/be married to/attend a gay wedding, you won't be forced to hang out with people of other religions or races. You can stay in your monocramatic bubble and no one will care. The only thing you will be "forced" to do is treat and provide services to those "different" people with the same courtesy you would "normal" people.
(And "tolerate" and "accept" are synonyms.)
Note everything in bold would 180 degrees from a liberal point of view if hey were asked to tolerate the 2A.
Note how many times the word "force", or some variant of it, is used and how it implies one do something they wouldn't necessarily do.
This is basically giving SJWs the ability to create laws to buffer special snowflakes from normal bumps in the road all people face. Life is not a bowl of cherries and no one needs to "tolerate" anything unless they wish to.
Are there toleration police willing to break legs until one caves into "forced" liberal tolerance? Talk about 1984 and an Orwellian society.
Tolerance to me would mean to respect a different opinion or way of life even if you don't agree with it. Acceptance means you agree with that opinion or way of life.
true , well that means Im not tolerant and dont respect others who hate our country but live here...
I hardly would consider a bakery to be essential. Are you saying you cannot exist without bakeries?
um....yes...
they don't call us White Bread for nothing...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's kind of splitting hairs trying to define the difference between the two.
