its not about tolerance either

To follow up my post from a few days ago, I came across this article in the Colorado Springs Gazette this morning. Apparently, a Colorado College student has received some anti-gay graffiti on his dorm room door. Now, I strongly disagree with this kind of behavior (the graffiti), but it was the reaction that I find interesting. Some students have planned a sit-in, which appears to be supported by the administration, with the message "Don't tolerate intolerance." You might as well say, "Stay dry while dripping wet" or "relativism is the only answer."

Clearly, we need a better vocabulary for talking about these things. The CC students and administration are right to not allow the singling out of a gay student for scorn. But, just don't call it "tolerance." It is intolerant and they are right to be so. You can't fight intolerance by being intolerant.  They are intolerant of a behavior that is against the norms of their campus. Just call it what it is.

Comments

[Mary Grisolano]

I don't understand this argument. The phrase, ‘don’t tolerate intolerance’ does not contradict itself (see definition below). It simply means (my paraphrase/dramatic interpretation), “do not allow others to insult, degrade or dehumanize you when they morally disagree with you’. Students feeling outraged because of hateful graffiti is a natural reaction. College students protest when they feel outraged – it’s just what they do…

Tolerance: (as defined by the second definition of Websters on line):
a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something

Technically, no words are being misused in the catch phrase ‘don’t tolerate intolerance’, whether you like how they’re used or not.

[GB]

Maybe I did not explain my idea clearly. I do not have a problem with the students being outraged or the fact that they protest. In fact, I agree with this response. What I tried to argue is that what they are outraged about, what they are protesting is NOT "intolerance" per se.

I say this because the students themselves are being "intolerant" of the anti-gay graffitiers.

And, they should be.

"Don't tolerate intolerance" DOES contradict itself.

[Jesse]

"what they are protesting is NOT "intolerance" per se."

Homphobia is intolerance of homosexuality. Maybe you don't want to admit that because it would make you look like a homophobe/bigot, but there is no logic in homophobia.

It's quite simple and I'm puzzled that you fail to grasp it.

[Michael]

Jesse,

Study your Greek. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality, which may or may not manifest itself in gross acts of violence. You, like every other post you've made here today, demonstrate that you just don't get it.

What Mr. Battersby is saying is that these students are intolerant of the actions against the homosexual student. Intolerant of intolerance is a contradiction. They are protesting a behavior, as they should; they are not protesting "intolerance" as a whole.

[GB]

Jesse: I'm not sure what you are responding to, but it does not seem to be my post here.

[Jesse]

"Mr. Battersby is saying is that these students are intolerant of the actions against the homosexual student. Intolerant of intolerance is a contradiction. They are protesting a behavior, as they should; they are not protesting "intolerance" as a whole."

Geez you bible thumpers and your hypocrisy never fails to give me a good chuckle:

"It's not intolerance if we also think homosexuality is wrong."

This is as plain as the nose on your face: homophobia is intolerance of homosexuality. Whether you want to get into some asinine debate over semantics regarding those who protested the actions of this homophobic cretin is beside the point. You have both tried- and failed- to argue that those who defend the gay student are somehow 'intolerant'.

What is at issue is that you think protecting homophobia requires tolerance. This is baseless and disgusting and out of sync with what Americans think.

[Jesse]

"Jesse: I'm not sure what you are responding to, but it does not seem to be my post here."

So not only do you not understand the English language well enough to make your own arguments properly, you can't follow any other written English either. Tragic.

[Ken]

Jesse,
You seem to have thoroughly missed the point. By framing their protest in this way (“don’t tolerate intolerance!”), these students seem to be buying into a form of relativism in which “tolerance” means: “no one is justified in imposing their morality on anyone else.” Thus, the protesting students are essentially saying: “Don't let anyone (like this homophobe) impose his morality on anyone else!” But this is a contradiction, because in saying this they are imposing their own morality *on him* (i.e. their belief that treating people with respect is more important than what you do in the bedroom, or something along those lines). They are just as “intolerant” of his homophobia as he is of homosexuality, *and they should be*.

Geoffrey is saying that they are *right* to protest such homophobic graffiti; the problem is their embrace of relativistic terminology to do so. If morality truly is relative (so that it is illegitimate to impose it on anyone else) then homosexuality is not wrong, but neither is homophobia, and the protestors are no more or less justified in their actions than the homophobe is. By protesting, they are implicitly recognizing that some actions are just plain wrong--no matter what a person thinks--and so denying the very relativistic “tolerance” they are claiming to affirm.

Their statement, as it stands, means “Tolerate tolerance!” or “Be intolerant of intolerance!” – both of which are clearly contradictory.

[Ken]

Come to think of it, only “Be intolerant of intolerance!” is the contradiction; “Tolerate tolerance” itself would not be contradictory--it would be tautological (but therefore just as meaningless).