Who's REALLY the bigot?

I agree, but you can certainly see how someone might find this a difficult concept to grasp. Tolerance is almost "meta-intolerance". Intolerance of intolerance is the only type of intolerance that's "allowed".

 

The problem is that LGBTQ rights opponents are the ones who are trying to force their morality onto others, whereas LGBTQ people and their supporters just want people to live their lives without fear of persecution. That doesn't mean there are some bigoted views some in the LGBTQ community hold, but in regards to when it comes to LGBTQ rights, opponents of such rights are bigots. End of story.

 

I hope not to seem disagreeable and hostile here, but the difficulty folks have in grasping this concept is genuinely puzzling to me. John Rawls talks about this in A Theory of Justice, having an essay by the same name "Tolerance of the Intolerant." I actually go a little farther than he does, because although I agree with his core argument, I worry that he retreats from the very natural conclusion of his view, which is that if intolerance of the intolerant is justified when the intolerant threaten democratic institutions (which I take broadly to mean not only the political process, but also the material conditions necessary for minorities to enjoy equal rights, and so on), then it is incumbent on him to define particular circumstances when people are actually threatening democratic institutions, and when the tolerant are allowed to switch modes as it were, and be intolerant of their incursion.

Notably, John Rawls fails to tackle a historical question which I think is very relevant to ask: "what would your theory say about whether the Cable Street Riot against anti-Semitism was justified?"

Rawls seems quite scared about what his view means.

I'm more prepared to speak up for him: yes, if we're tolerant of difference, and we protect people's rights to dignity, association, and freedom, then we must necessarily be hostile to those who disagree with people's enjoyment of the rights, to the extent that they direct the violence of the State in opposition.

~ Adrienne

 

But if you don't let them take away rights, you're taking away their rights to take away rights. (*sarcasm*)

 

I wanted to make an in-depth response so bear with me.

All people are entitled to forming an opinion, but it does not mean that all opinions are equally justified. What many people tend to struggle with is realizing that, although we are entitled to our opinions, all opinions are not deserving of influence, recognition, or acceptance in society.

Here is an example:

"Christopher doesn't believe that bisexual people exist, but Stephanie claims to be bisexual."

Christopher is entitled to having his opinion on the existence of Stephanie's identity, but his opinion is not comparable to Stephanie's claim of identity. Bisexuality is not a public matter. Personal opinions on the harmless gender, sexual, racial, or religious identities of others should never be influential within a society. By influential this means, Christopher believing that he is justified in discriminating publicly. This means feeling as though our disbelief or discomfort means that those people shouldn't be seen by the public, allowed in certain spaces, or even allowed to be free citizens.

Whether our opinions deserve to be influential also ties into whether they deserve social acceptance. This is something that people tend to struggle with and it touches the controversial subject of political correctness.

Here is another example:

"Jessica thinks the woman approaching her is wearing a horrid outfit. Emily loves the ensemble."

Now, both women are equally deserving of having an opinion. There is no evidence or science to support either view. Taste in fashion is completely a matter of opinion. But the question is whether voicing both of these opinions publicly be seen equally acceptable? The answer is obviously not. Complimenting others and voicing support for lifestyles, tastes, or identities is a harmless but potentially beneficial behavior. Voicing criticisms about lifestyles, tastes, or identities that are ultimately harmless in that they do not infringe on our lifestyles, tastes, or identities into public settings is never a beneficial behavior and far from harmless.

Ultimately, what separates someone who is being bigoted, oppressive, or hateful from someone who has an opinion is the entitlement. Not feeling entitled to an opinion. But feeling entitled to live in a society that they want to live, treat others as they wish to treat them, or implement laws that create restrictions simply because they have an opinion. Not because science. Not because of research. Not because of evidence or support. They believe that their opinion should be influential, recognized, and respected in society simply because they have it and that is a very dangerous mindset to have.

 

Exactly.

Being a maximally tolerant society requires intolerance being socially unacceptable. This "intolerant of intolerance" crap is just a way of confusing people into putting up with bigotry.

 

Excellent explanation. I can certainly understand and see when intolerance of the intolerant is justified.

That's what separates the two factions here: one is threatening democratic institutions (i.e. access to rights) and one isn't. Yet there is some resistance to the idea that the sides are different, that simply by not being "open-minded" to those who are trying to deny rights, we are being "intolerant bigots". The idea that I have to be open to and tolerant of those are trying to deny me rights and discriminate against me in order to avoid being labeled a "bigot", is frankly, bullshit.

As funny as it sounds, that does seem to be a common attitude. "All opinions are equally valid". No, they're not. "We have to tolerate intolerance." No, we don't. "If we don't value their intolerant opinions, then we're just as bad as them!" So you admit they're bad, huh?

Agreed with Gen on this one: "They believe that their opinion should be influential, recognized, and respected in society simply because they have it and that is a very dangerous mindset to have." Having a right to state an opinion does not mean your opinion is automatically respectable or valid. And disagreeing with someone's opinion and calling them out on their BS is not denying them the right to have that opinion.

 

In my opinion, there is no good group or bad group.. yes LGBT are the minority in terms of population, but that doesn't mean that they don't go too far, the same for religious, & people who are even non-religious, there are people who don't believe in a higher power that are as well against LGBT. & what bothers me is that, it seems okay nowadays to generalize religious folks, when while being spiritual myself & hearing hurtful things, I don't put everyone in one box.. there are Christians, Muslims etc who don't judge LGBT, & agree with them being given benefits & other rights others have access to, yes they may not agree with everything related to LGBT but that doesn't make them bad for having a differing view, as long as it's not taking away someones legal right, but other than that.. you can't expect everyone to like you, or how you live, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be respected.. & I agree that there needs to be respect for LGBT, especially young kids struggling, especially in middle/high school, but I think both sides need to stop.. with the threats of hell & calling each other bigots, it's not helpful.

 

Leaving out the semantic arguments over the word bigot, as a humanist and empiricist I believe there is a logical way to answer this question: which group quantifiably causes the greatest amount of suffering. It is clearly the opposition to LGBT rights. I cannot conjure up a single way in which a member of the LGBT community exercising their rights would be oppressing the opposition. However, there is a broad strata of ways in which the opposition, let's just call them who they are and say the religious right, can and have oppressed LGBT citizens. From the lawyer in California who tried to introduce a bill that would allow for the execution of gay people, to the weak-kneed liberal who would compromise with civil unions rather than demand equal rights.

There is also a hierarchy within the religious right: there are unethical political manipulators, antiquated religious zealots, and masses of unthinking proletariat who believe whatever the talking heads on TV tell them.

As a side note, I will state that even more than the word bigot I hate the word tolerance—and yet more the word offensive. These are the ineffectual buzzwords of the other side of the coin. When someone has an asinine belief or a stupid idea, it's fine as long as they don't take actions that affect others. If someone wants to harbor a belief in something that flies in the face of everything we know about how the world works, no problem—but don't tell me that I have to believe it too, or that I can't declare that I think it's extremely stupid and pernicious.

 

I must say I strongly disagree. Human opinions are shaped from the top down to a great extent. That means, if society improves, so will human opinions be more open-minded. But it also works the other way. Opinions contribute to how society is, which contributes to opinions... so one must work on both levels. Accepting evil opinions and looking the other way is practically advocating a stalemate or apathy. And I can understand the feeling of "it's too late" or "it's no use". But, well. I don't think that is the case. And the world will not be a better place if evil is allowed to prosper.

 

Both. LGBT supporters often don't even try to understand how their opponents are feeling and why they feel that way. Tolerance is needed on both sides. Although pot calling kettle black as I condemn homophobia and am not afraid to show it.

 

You have some excellent points actually. But you have to agree with me that there are some people on both sides of every argument who you cannot shift their views one bit, so thats when you should agree to disagree and accept that you cannot manipulate people.

And there is nothing evil about an opinion, because evil is seen differently, its a matter of perspective, so the true evil would be if we didn't at least respect someone else's views, even if they are silly in your eyes.

By all means argue with someone, but respect them too.

 

I doubt that LGBT people are wholly or even at all ignorant of why people are anti-LGBT. I simply don't consider my or your humanity and right to equally access legal and social institutions to be acceptable to doubt or reject.

Additionally, some of the nastiest things I've heard about trans and bi people have come from other members of the LGBT community. It's a messy situation in which the LGBT community is far from united, so it's not a matter of us as a collective and them.

To state that all opinions are equally deserving of respect and have equal weight is to say that there can be no real morality. I reject that very strongly.

 

Beliefs can be evil. People may have different beliefs about what is evil and what is not, but some of them are wrong. If I believe that it's OK to enslave people who have red hair, that is an evil belief that has consequences.

While we should respect people's right to believe, not all beliefs should be respected because not all beliefs are worthy of respect. Why should I respect someone's belief that LGBT people like me are less worthy of respect than everyone else?

 

Evil is subjective... To those who are religious, if you give the finger to God and sin against him continuously within your own will, you are evil. To the atheist who believes this religion is ludicrous brainwashing bullshit, the religion is evil. It's a messed up world we live in.