I attended a discussion recently that consisted of people with similar political opinions. However, I was surprised by the aggressiveness of some of the attendees –a bitter kind of fury lurked within the rhetoric there. I have an unfortunate tendency toward anger myself, but this tone was so extreme that someone else in the group spoke up, saying that this intolerance was not going to get us anywhere. It inspired me to reflect on my own biases and inconsistencies.
One term in the English language defines such an intricate and difficult problem. It is a “conundrum.”
It is part of the liberal’s creed to be accepting of people from all walks of life. “Liberal” is partially defined by Merriam-Webster as “broad-minded.” Does that not also include those who are not liberal-minded? Surely in order to consider ourselves truly tolerant, we must also accept those on the opposite end of the spectrum.
After all, tolerance is defined as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.” Surely practices that conflict with liberalism will include intolerance, and by definition, those who are tolerant must tolerate intolerance.
If we stand toe-to-toe screaming obscenities at each other, what have we accomplished, other than finding out just how descriptive the English language can be? Someone has to be the more mature of the pair and become tolerant of even the most opposite of viewpoints.
However, when the viewpoint shifts to violence and refusal of acceptance, it seems counterintuitive and counterproductive to accept it. But to call ourselves tolerant, we are bound to accept even the most hate-filled of positions.
As one of my friends put it, “We can’t hate the haters.”
There is talk of educating the “other side” – but that in itself is an arrogant presumption, one that is reminiscent of paternalism. That is not to say that ignorance is something to be cultivated, but if the same facts have been presented and different conclusions have been drawn, the opinion can still have value if it has been carefully considered.
Active education merely puts up guards, and ultimately defeats the purpose. Exposure is really the best way to educate. Things become less scary when you know what they are and have seen that they’re not going to kill you in your sleep. But to come across as superior is to shut down the other person, who is not likely to listen any more.
Our political system has become just this kind of situation, and anything suggested by the “other side” is automatically viewed as venomous.
It is so easy to get into an “us versus them” mentality. Both sides use phrases like “the other side,” “those people,” “these people” and even simply, “them.”
I’m guilty of it myself – it is a bad habit, one I am particularly capable of falling into when in the presence of people who agree with me. We all do it. We get so excited about finding a group of people we identify with, and we realize just how good it feels to be a part of that group. It’s a survival instinct, left over from when being of the same mind meant survival against the harsh elements. I’d like to think we’re capable of moving past that now.
