Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3880)	10/22/2004 12:00:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

It's an interesting piece, thanks. It points out how Prof. Snider has intolerance for diversity of ideas and that this intolerant attitude is pushed forth in the name of "tolerance". I think an academic setting is precisely where tolerance for diversity of ideas should be highest, but too often that's where it is lowest at least for certain types of ideas. It's one thing if ideas unpopular in an academic setting face harsh counter arguments, its quite another if they are ruled out of bounds from the beginning. Problem is is that bigots think those things about which they are intolerant are bad things, which is why they're intolerant of them. Some things are obviously good and some things obviously bad. But there are lots of things in the middle that are just a matter of opinion. Yes calling someone "intolerant" generally assumes that the thing that they will not tolerate is a good thing or idea, at the very least it assumes it is neutral. You won't often hear the phrase "you are intolerant about terrorism", and if a such a statements was made it might be interpreted as a compliment. Intolerant becomes a label that at least in certain settings or for certain groups or individuals has a very negative impact. Fine distinctions are rarely made as to what the "intolerant" person refuses to tolerate. If for example someone says they are against same sex marriage being endorsed by the government (or even that they have qualms or misgivings about it) they are presented as being intolerant not only about same sex marriage (even though they might actually tolerate it if it happens) but about homosexuals, and probably about other things, people, or ideas as well. Of course intolerant is not the only type of label that is often used more as a matter of rhetoric and as a means to attack rather than as a means to describe or understand. We have many examples of such labels now with the current election cycle coming to a head. Tim