Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
I've been thinking for a while that we should have a discussion about how constructive it is to be as "tolerant" as we have been with opposing views. The liberal philosophy is open to new ideas that move us forward - a model that we are all proud of. It can also be that which will most likely betray us. Tolerance, by one definition, can mean "to endure without repugnance." The obvious problem arises when a person's behavior or actions are so repugnant that (s)he should not only not be tolerated, but rejected. Conversely, there are some posters with opposing views who not only deserve tolerance but also respect. It is a fine line and deciding where to draw it requires careful consideration.
Here at BH, it is important to recognize and acknowledge the viewpoints of all contributors in the spirit of openness and inclusivity. Yet this only works when each individual is willing to acknowledge the higher interests of the community. A constant use of inflammatory, fallacious, and borderline offensive language and tactics are not meant to advance constructive dialog. A person who fallaciously describes most government spending as "charity at the point of a gun" is not interested in sharing Truth, but in imposing a limited, one-sided world-view on others. In essence, a fundamentalist who insists that the light of this Truth shines only through his window.
We lose a bit of ourselves by permitting this continued destructive behavior. While understanding that strongly held views can elicit strong language, it is critical that this take place in an environment of trust to promote collaboration that brings us closer to a community Truth. It is risky to disagree with others - to expose your ideas to criticism and analysis from others is inherently risky. You are trusting that the other person(s) is willing to listen and understand, secure enough to allow himself to be persuaded. Time and again, rather than searching for a common Truth, we witness a hard-bitten zealot fiercely holding onto world-views as though they were salvation itself, ignoring the opposing viewpoints of friend and foe alike. The mission, then, by this fundamentalist, is to convert or destroy, not collaborate.
I believe that honoring this destructive behavior (by tolerating it and participating with it) undermines a collaborative and cooperative community. Simply agitating for your point of view is contrary to a productive dialog, particularly when the stated political strategy is to co-opt the positions of your political opponents. In what ways does that honor trust and help to build a more universal truth?
It is head-spinning to read a post that insults religious leaders as "true lost souls" because the sun of their truth shines at a different angle than that of the poster. The sad irony of a post that impugns the efforts of people dedicated to social equality as a moral imperative is completely lost on the poster, who not only stands by the reprehensible comments, but doubles-down on them.
From my perspective, this type of behavior should not be condoned by allowing it to continue. What say you?
