Show profile
Link to this post
Subject: Intolerance as a phenomenon.
This is something I've noticed for a long time, but it's so intractable I cannot mentally get a solid hold of it. The world is becoming more intolerant, less reasonable, less logical. People are increasingly seeking solid answers as a sort of solace in uncertain times, and they're not particularly fussed about the intelligence or truth behind the answers. Anyone with an opinion, no matter how nonsensical, is encouraged to express it, and woe betide anyone who ventures an opposing idea.
It seems that I'm not the only person noticing this. It's incredibly humbling to see so many other people getting a firmer grasp of this, and expressing in succinct terms concepts that I can only barely discern.
The intolerance is widespread:
Regarding the burning of holy books, which pisses people off in maddeningly childish ways. This is similar, IMO, to people freaking out when I disassemble a rare game system to see what's in it, then modify it to be more useful to me. Some people really don't like it 'cause to them it's way more valuable than it is to me. Tough shit, it's mine:
Most religious people I've met are reasonable reasonably intelligent. Most of the religious people on TV are fucking retarded. All of the muslims I've met are very kind people. All of the mulsims on TV are hate-filled zealots. That anyone can seriously condone murder for some of these trivial acts is beyond me.
James Fallows, who I quote a lot around here, posted this today:
The fall of America upsets me a little. I am greatly disappointed by the increasing intolerance I see happening there. You don't dare get into a discussion on just about any political hotbutton topic on a forum with Americans, 'cause holy shit, they will go off.
But why? Americans, for sure, have always been like that. For hundreds of years there have been complaints made and articles written about these topics. Likely it's a worldwide phenomenon. But lately America's pride has been enough for Americans. The silly rabble are raising their shrill, fearmongering and ignorant voices in ever greater volumes, it seems.
But why?
Charles Stross is an author I tend to enjoy. In a recent blog post he brought up the idea of future shock, a fifty year old idea that people would, in the face of rapid and rampant change, freak out and seek out solace. To see this shit coming half a century in advance is stunningly clever.
Wow, does that hit the nail on the head or what? A lot of people in my life have disappointed me with their stubborn insistence on being stubborn. I only recently worked out that they were scared, but of what I could not be certain. My working theory, that they were just scared of these things they were all irrational about, seems to have widely missed the mark. Instead, it seems, they're scared of everything, of the unpredictability of it all. And, it seems, we're in it for the long haul. I agree with Mr. Stross:
And then the thorny issue of religious tolerance. I've been harshly critical of religions and the religious because I believe they're dangerous escapist cults preying on the frightened and ignorant. I think we should mock and deride them all until they wither and fade under the harsh light of common fucking sense. But, and I've known this for a while, this is a fairly immature attitude too. Mr. Stross suggests we might accomodate these religious, tolerate them while they shield people from this future shock. Give them a place to cower and hopefully come to grips with the fact that this is a very fun and exciting time to be alive.
But can we get back to mocking them after they settle down?
Probably not. They'll never really come to grips with this world, I'm sure.
Deep craziness: we're in it.
Too right we are. =/
9/11 is too often used as justification for all kinds of authoritarian clamps imposed upon our freedoms. The terrorists are out there, and they're gonna get us all unless we strip back our own freedoms first. Cutting off our own noses as a pre-emptive move. I don't approve.
This has been a disjointed and rambling post, for which I apologize. I leave you with this quote from David Foster Wallace:
It seems that I'm not the only person noticing this. It's incredibly humbling to see so many other people getting a firmer grasp of this, and expressing in succinct terms concepts that I can only barely discern.
The intolerance is widespread:
Regarding the burning of holy books, which pisses people off in maddeningly childish ways. This is similar, IMO, to people freaking out when I disassemble a rare game system to see what's in it, then modify it to be more useful to me. Some people really don't like it 'cause to them it's way more valuable than it is to me. Tough shit, it's mine:
Quote by Pharyngula:What right do others have to rank the importance of my possessions to me?
Most religious people I've met are reasonable reasonably intelligent. Most of the religious people on TV are fucking retarded. All of the muslims I've met are very kind people. All of the mulsims on TV are hate-filled zealots. That anyone can seriously condone murder for some of these trivial acts is beyond me.
Quote by Pharyngula:Religion infantilizes people. It makes them humorless and blind to others' ideas. We're doing no favor to them by indulging their unrealistic and impossible dreams of controlling everyone else's life.
James Fallows, who I quote a lot around here, posted this today:
Quote by James Fallows:The upsurge in expressed hostility toward Muslims -- not toward extremists or terrorists but toward adherents of a religion as a group -- creates an American moment that isn't going to look good in historical retrospect, The people indulging in this kind of group-bias speech deserve to be called out.
Kristof has called out one of the people I had in mind: Martin Peretz, listed as editor in chief of the New Republic, someone I have known very slightly since the days when he was a young professor at Harvard and I was a student. What he wrote, which the younger version of himself would have excoriated, was this:
[F]rankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf [of the NYC "mosque" project] there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.
What's the point in piling on now, when these words have been so roundly condemned in so many quarters? Here is part of what I meant to say last week:
Martin Peretz's stated complaint about mainstream Muslims is that they don't step up to condemn egregious acts by people who could be considered "their own." Let's apply that logic here. Around the world, Martin Peretz would be seen as one of "our own," for people in the press and at his magazine. He is an American, and a prominent member of the media. So by his standards, we should raise our voices to say about one of "our own," this is wrong. Rather than seeming to condone the sentiments through silence, or to grant their author a pass because of his connections and standing, we should, again, say: This is wrong, and un-American. Anyone saying such things does not speak for "us."
The fall of America upsets me a little. I am greatly disappointed by the increasing intolerance I see happening there. You don't dare get into a discussion on just about any political hotbutton topic on a forum with Americans, 'cause holy shit, they will go off.
But why? Americans, for sure, have always been like that. For hundreds of years there have been complaints made and articles written about these topics. Likely it's a worldwide phenomenon. But lately America's pride has been enough for Americans. The silly rabble are raising their shrill, fearmongering and ignorant voices in ever greater volumes, it seems.
But why?
Charles Stross is an author I tend to enjoy. In a recent blog post he brought up the idea of future shock, a fifty year old idea that people would, in the face of rapid and rampant change, freak out and seek out solace. To see this shit coming half a century in advance is stunningly clever.
Quote by Charles Stross:My working hypothesis to explain the 21st century is that the Tofflers underestimated how pervasive future shock would be. I think somewhere in the range from 15-30% of our fellow hairless primates are currently in the grip of future shock, to some degree. Symptoms include despair, anxiety, depression, disorientation, paranoia, and a desperate search for certainty in lives that are experiencing unpleasant and uninvited change. It's no surprise that anyone who can offer dogmatic absolute answers is popular, or that the paranoid style is again ascendant in American politics, or that religious certainty is more attractive to many than the nuanced complexities of scientific debate. Climate change is an exceptionally potent trigger for future shock insofar as it promises an unpleasant and unpredictable dose of upcoming instability in the years ahead; denial is an emotionally satisfying response to the threat, if not a sustainable one in the longer term.
Wow, does that hit the nail on the head or what? A lot of people in my life have disappointed me with their stubborn insistence on being stubborn. I only recently worked out that they were scared, but of what I could not be certain. My working theory, that they were just scared of these things they were all irrational about, seems to have widely missed the mark. Instead, it seems, they're scared of everything, of the unpredictability of it all. And, it seems, we're in it for the long haul. I agree with Mr. Stross:
Quote by Charles Stross:Deep craziness: we're in it, and there's probably not going to be any reduction in the prevalence of authoritarian escapism until we collectively become accustomed to the pace of change. Which will, at a minimum, not happen until the older generations have died of old age - and maybe not even then.
And then the thorny issue of religious tolerance. I've been harshly critical of religions and the religious because I believe they're dangerous escapist cults preying on the frightened and ignorant. I think we should mock and deride them all until they wither and fade under the harsh light of common fucking sense. But, and I've known this for a while, this is a fairly immature attitude too. Mr. Stross suggests we might accomodate these religious, tolerate them while they shield people from this future shock. Give them a place to cower and hopefully come to grips with the fact that this is a very fun and exciting time to be alive.
But can we get back to mocking them after they settle down?
Probably not. They'll never really come to grips with this world, I'm sure.
Deep craziness: we're in it.
Too right we are. =/
9/11 is too often used as justification for all kinds of authoritarian clamps imposed upon our freedoms. The terrorists are out there, and they're gonna get us all unless we strip back our own freedoms first. Cutting off our own noses as a pre-emptive move. I don't approve.
This has been a disjointed and rambling post, for which I apologize. I leave you with this quote from David Foster Wallace:
Quote by DFW:Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, "sacrifices on the altar of freedom"? In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life--sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
BLEARGH
