My dad and I had a conversation recently about the cultural obsession with "tolerance." Specifically, we talked about what supposed free-thinkers really mean when they demand open-mindedness.
Of course, they mean for people of opposing views to lay their assumptions aside in order to find common ground and discuss problems rationally. They want intellectuals to start at the bottom line and explain the reasons for their beliefs step by step, in order to reach agreement together.
No, wait.
Then why are fair debates so hard to find? Why are the most well-read and intelligent individuals (usually those most interested in conversation because they know they have solid reasoning) dismissed as bigots and silenced? Why was I called names ("immature" and "ridiculous") when I defended Sarah Palin with a relevent parallel? By the way, don't miss the comment section of that post! Apparently, I made Anonymous "sick," since I was "so sure" I was right. How could I be so close-minded?
Instead of the above definition, our culture's idea of tolerance and open-mindedness only requires those holding traditional beliefs to give them up, even if they haven't been proven incorrect. "Old" automatically means "outdated," and anything controversial is Progress! Think we should allow mothers to kill their unborn? Believe the government should steal from the rich to feed the poor? Don't worry about the evidence to the contrary; the good news is you're open-minded!
Ann Coulter explains how this phenomenon affects politics in her article about "sacrosanct" topics. (Okay, I had to look up this word. Forgive me if you already know this, but sacrosanct means hallowed, venerated, or consecrated. Anything "sancrosanct" is assumed correct and beyond the realm of questioning. End grammer lesson.)
I'm well aware of Coulter's reputation in the liberal media. She's irreverent and unapologetic. But I have to ask, "Is she wrong?" Really, let's be open-minded here. After reading her examples, and allowing for comic-exagerration and sarcasm, tell me what's inconsistent about her statement:
When liberals say, "nothing is sacrosanct," they mean "nothing other Americans consider sacrosanct is sacrosanct." They demonstrate their open-mindedness by ridiculing other people's dogma, but will not brook the most trifling criticism of their own...
Or, tell me what's wrong with my statement that only a gun-holder--not somehow Sarah Palin--can be responsible for a shooting. I'm open to criticism regarding anything I've posted to this blog because I want to find the truth more than I want to be right. The truth can handle criticism.
But, I'll only be open-minded as long as it means having ears ready to allow words into my brain, where they will be processed, evaluated for revelence, and assessed with critical thinking. On the other hand, I must reserve the right to rebut with facts of my own.... And I must insist there be no name-calling. No stating the obvious "you just think you're right" without giving me reason to believe otherwise.
As a lover of debate and respecter of truth, I wish more people sparked up conversations and reasonsed fairly, in order to build consensus. It's a lot of fun when done properly. But both parties have to come humbly. Both must be ready to concede. And if, eventually, one person's case falls apart and he resorts only to insults or fleeing the situation, guess which one probably owned a list of selfish, sacrosanct ideas and a closed mind?
So you're assuming that you're the "most well-read and intelligent individual" in your conversations?
ReplyDeleteThat's adorable, don't you love when overconfidence leads to ignorance? Because you seem to be a part of that kind of cycle almost constantly.
Everything considered 'sacrosanct' is relative to that individual - and who are you to go and tell someone else that the beliefs you hold and the stuff you think is more correct than what they think? Unless you have a hand-written letter from your mythical "God" that both shows he exists and that he fully supports your views, then you are subject to the same criticisms you have about the things that everyone else believes in.
Word to the 'wise' - being open-minded is about recognizing the possibility that you are wrong/not being cemented into the belief that you are always right. Once you can do that and think critically about the things your church feeds you every Sunday, you can be a contributing member of society. Nothing you write on this god forsaken blog is something I couldn't read in any number of extremist Christian/Republican books. Get your own opinions for once.
By the way, the next time you want to give a grammar lesson, a) be sure what you are discussing is grammar (the definition of sacrosanct is actually a vocabulary lesson) and b) be sure to spell grammar correctly.
Good luck being a successful and life-changing teacher when you don't know basic instructional guidelines like spelling and the difference between basic english divisions.
If you're going to quote that anonymous comment in quotation marks, you should probably use actual words from the comment.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteJust one question: Why are you so angry?
Multiple times I've stated that this blog is a place where people who are searching for the truth can engage in dialog. All genuine questions are fair game. But I will not tolerate name-calling or personal attacks. Why stoop to that level, if our motives are pure?
But I guess it's different if our sole objective is to cover our identities and throw darts from behind a computer screen. Or, if the foundation of our beliefs is uncertain, and some no-nothing teacher strikes a nerve (or several), THEN I understand being very, very uncomfortable with her confidence. If she's right, this is a big, life-changing deal. So lash out, by all means!
If you want an example of true open-mindedness, I hope you'll read the comments section of posts such as "Her House is on Fire" or "I Don't Need a Man--Except Uncle Sam" and notice the many PRODUCTIVE discussions I've had with anonymous readers (one of whom now posts under the name "Searching"). As we've gotten to know eachother, our disagreements haven't turned angry, and we've proven that respectful, back-and-forth exchanges of ideas happen as long as everyone agrees to keep it civil. All views will be considered equally. But, if your definition of open-mindedness is that all views are equally TRUE, then we can talk philosophy (including Plato).
You're right about at least one thing. I'm subject to the same criticisms as everyone else. But you have yet to make a logical case--unless you really expect me to address the claim that I'm not a contributing member of society or you actually think a typo makes me wrong on all other counts.
Bottom line: I won't dignify any emotional outbursts with an answer. But I'm serious when I ask whether you're willing to jump on board with rational discussion, in a team effort to answer the question "What are we doing here?" Or do you feel better now that you've vented and plan to sink back into internet obscurity never to be heard from again?
I'm angry because I've spent a lot of time reading your extremist, caustic blog and I think I've seen maybe one post that I've remotely agreed with. I think you are very immature - combatting random people on facebook, shoving your beliefs down their throats, and then coming to your blog to gloat? (this is referring to several posts of yours - I'll let you remember the specific ones). I consider myself a very moderate person, and your posts are anything but.
ReplyDeleteYou are not open-minded, and if you think you are then you should look into that definition. Open-mindedness isn't necessarily calling every view true - but it is accepting the possibility that you are wrong and I have never seen that level of respect for your fellow human being in any of your numerous posts.
I can assure you that your posts do not strike my nerves because of some kind of revelation, or my realizing that my life needs to change. I'm not 'lashing out' because I'm afraid of how much my life needs to change - I'm more terrified of how vehement and hateful you come across as in all of your posts and offended by your active denial of logic and refusal to even consider opposing positions.
Rest assured I will be looking at these other comment sections to see this dialogue that you are talking about. But if the dialogue is anything like the facebook conversations you post about, my hopes are not even remotely high.