Conceding Non-Consensus

[Opsa]

I really get my snark on when I hear calls for new immigrants to assimilate seamlessly into the dominant culture at the expense of their own traditions (particularily WRT language and food).   

Me too.

But that would be considered intolerance, the one thing which we here have agreed not to tolerate.

I think you're right, we do seem to have something here that I hope we can share with a larger audience. Your question is: How can we present our views without alienating people?

[Aggie]

I think you're right, we do seem to have something here that I hope we can share with a larger audience. Your question is: How can we present our views without alienating people?

I wish I could put it so clearly (but that's not exactly what I was thinking).  The main problem (diverging from the OP) is more along the line of:

How do we make a case for tolerance to those who are currently in a culture of intolerance?

and

How do we encourage cross-belief learning and communication without threatening incompatible beliefs?  (which I believe we do an OK job of here)


Now, I've kept this pretty broad and non-specific, but the scenario I had in mind was like this:

Group A share Belief A, which dictates (among other things) that only people who share Belief A will go to Goodplace in the afterlife, and that everyone else will go to Badplace.  An unfortunate number of Group A have extrapolated this to infer that either a) everyone else is a Badperson, and their presence threatens Belief A  or   b) everyone else needs 'saving' by conversion to Belief A.

It's a) that needs addressing first perhaps, and can perhaps be addressed with communication and tolerance, but I think the original post also takes b) into account.  Note that although a) is most obviously associated with faith-based groups, b) is surprisingly common within scientific circles, and I can think of several cases of opposing 'camps' getting muley stubborn about sticking to their treasured theories even when experimental evidence begins to indicate that the scientific reality lies somewhere in between.

[The Meromorph]

I can't remember who wrote it (Might have been Herman Khan), but there was a book about 30 or 40 years ago demonstrating that this is endemic in the history of science. It apparently takes a 'generation and a half' for the revolution in scientific thought to actually happen, and for the new truth to become accepted.

[Opsa]

So all we have to do is keep it up another 150 years? That's doable. But we'll need to send for more beer.

[anthrobabe]

A good take on the idea of scientists getting "entrenched and stubborn" is the one made in "A Flock of Dodos" by Randy Olson.  It's subtle but he gets to it.
The idea of evolutionary theory did not stall 150 years ago, it is still growing-thriving and changing. Yes, the kernel is still intact but as we learn more and study more then our ideas/knowledge have to change! Or we are no different than those who can't/won't/don't know how to -change.

Being a student of anthropology- that has been hammered into my head since day one--- don't pick on others, don't call names, play nice--- one does not have to agree- one can have differing views/opinions/beliefs and still play nicely with others and value them as fellow beings. I believe that religion developed as a way of dealing with natural phenomena-- why does lightning strike, why are some of us dark brown, when we die you mean that is it,

Not alienating people is hard(maybe not the right word)--- I have trouble with it. I think it is the right thing to do- the right way to be so I work at it, I think before I speak(mostly).


so let's send for some moor beer and keep sticking together and looking out for one another.

[Griffin NoName]

Leaping back a bit, although it's relevant to the current debate too

how is it possible to bring the appreciation of diversity to a larger audience, particularly if that audience is a monoculture?

isn't that the same thing - or to put it another way - what is the difference between "bringing appreciation of {diversity} * " and persuading others to one's point of view? ie. What right have we to sell the idea of tolerance?

If we want a more tolerant society, shouldn't it be ok for others to want an intolerant society?

It apparently takes a 'generation and a half' for the revolution in scientific thought to actually happen, and for the new truth to become accepted.

That seems like "natural process" and more likely to succeed in the long run than attempting to persuade anyone of anything pro-actively.

I guess I am thinking in terms of what I have learnt of counselling and psychotherapy. Yes, challenge is one method, but the learning only tends to happen successfully as one comes to one's own realisation, rather than from interpretation or information. 

[Sibling Chatty]

I think I'm entitled to believe you are completely wrong in your beliefs.
What I'm not entitled to do is try to persuade you that your beliefs are completely wrong.
And I get a little grumpy if you try to 'reconcile' my beliefs and yours. That feels like a covert attempt at proselytising to me.
I won't get mad, I'll just be unhelpful, or change the subject...

I'm quite happy ro reconcile 'behaviours' on the other hand. The net results of Sibling Chatty's beliefs and mine are, to me, remarkably similar in many ways, though (to my understanding) our 'beliefs' are very different.

Yeah, 'ZAKLY what you said.

I don't even TRY to 'reconcile' beliefs, because few of us ever fully express the totality of our beliefs aloud, much less to the understanding of others.

I seek only people that have a clarity of expression of their genuine belief in the worthwhileness of others. That humans, no matter race, creed, color, gender, IQ, haircolor, foot size, butt size, abilities, differing abilities, even disabilities, mentalities, sexual orientation, WHATEVER, are humans, and worthy of equal regard until they prove to be otherwise. (The only way to prove to be otherwise? Act like someone else is worth less...)

I guess, underneath it all, I am a reluctant Humanist; the reluctance being that there are so many humans I just don't like that much. Unfortunately, I'm overqualified for the animal kingdom. (Damned opposable thumbs...only good for opening the dog food cans and hitting the spacebar.)

But, I like people that behave well toward others. Locally, globally, eventually I hope interplanetarily.

[anthrobabe]

I think I'm entitled to believe you are completely wrong in your beliefs.
What I'm not entitled to do is try to persuade you that your beliefs are completely wrong.
And I get a little grumpy if you try to 'reconcile' my beliefs and yours. That feels like a covert attempt at proselytising to me.
I won't get mad, I'll just be unhelpful, or change the subject...

I'm quite happy ro reconcile 'behaviours' on the other hand. The net results of Sibling Chatty's beliefs and mine are, to me, remarkably similar in many ways, though (to my understanding) our 'beliefs' are very different.

Yeah, 'ZAKLY what you said.

I don't even TRY to 'reconcile' beliefs, because few of us ever fully express the totality of our beliefs aloud, much less to the understanding of others.

I seek only people that have a clarity of expression of their genuine belief in the worthwhileness of others. That humans, no matter race, creed, color, gender, IQ, haircolor, foot size, butt size, abilities, differing abilities, even disabilities, mentalities, sexual orientation, WHATEVER, are humans, and worthy of equal regard until they prove to be otherwise. (The only way to prove to be otherwise? Act like someone else is worth less...)

I guess, underneath it all, I am a reluctant Humanist; the reluctance being that there are so many humans I just don't like that much. Unfortunately, I'm overqualified for the animal kingdom. (Damned opposable thumbs...only good for opening the dog food cans and hitting the spacebar.)

But, I like people that behave well toward others. Locally, globally, eventually I hope interplanetarily.

good way to put this

I say I know what I believe- but how well do I articulate it? Do I totally understand my beliefs myself?
Who am I really- to "judge" you (anyone).

Around my house we use our opposable thumbs for opening cat food, petting(aka worshiping) the cats, hitting the spacebar, and loading and unloading the washer/dryer--- and some other stuff those are the biggies on a daily basis

[The Meromorph]

A few days ago on NPR Brian Ferry was being interviewed about his 'Dylanesque' album. And in discussing "Knocking on Heavens Door", both he and the interviewer casually discussed the significance of 'a song about death'. This gave me a huge cognitive dissonance as I had always considered that song as 'a song about joy'.

After some thought I can see what they're on about, but still... 

[Aggie]

isn't that the same thing - or to put it another way - what is the difference between "bringing appreciation of {diversity} * " and persuading others to one's point of view? ie. What right have we to sell the idea of tolerance?

Sheer self-righteousness, the same thing that drives most other groups spreading a message. We think that our way is right and that spreading it will make things better (that's a) above). 

Not very Toadfishlike, is it?  In our defense, the simple concept of tolerance can be integrated with nearly any other belief system (except explicitly intolerant ones), is incrementally beneficial (one person being a little more tolerant, or a few in a group showing tolerance is still a good thing; having a tolerant majority is a goal but not a necessity), and one last thing which IMO is rather important:  it has serious potential to reduce certain (rather pointless) types of aggressive behavior and violence.  Anything that stops people hurting each other for stupid reasons* is a good thing.



_{*We may even create a growth industry dedicated to fabricating smarter reasons to justify violent actions.}

[Opsa]

(Note: Aggie and I replied simultaneously)

A few days ago on NPR Brian Ferry was being interviewed about his 'Dylanesque' album. And in discussing "Knocking on Heavens Door", both he and the interviewer casually discussed the significance of 'a song about death'. This gave me a huge cognitive dissonance as I had always considered that song as 'a song about joy'.

After some thought I can see what they're on about, but still... 

Weird. I always thought that song was about getting ready to get some booty. But that would be a joyful thing.

I don't think it's necessary to like everybody, especially when some clearly and repeatedly prove themselves to be schmoes. Perhaps it's not necessary to try to persuade them to try a more enlightened path, either. If they are truly schmoes, they will not be persuaded, plus who am I to say what's more enlightened? But if I can help by being in opposition to those who would hurt others for flimsy reasons, that's cool.

Who are we to judge? Well, in every culture on earth the most important value (whether it's followed or not) is not to harm eachother. It is important to our species, but we keep doing it because we are distracted by our emotions or our leaders ask us to do it for political reasons. It is a very difficult thing to ask people to think for themselves and think hard enough to resist harming eachother. It should be so simple. In fact, I think it's so simple we just don't bother to be aware of it enough to avoid doing it. But I believe we are capable of it.

We do have to judge. We have to judge what is harmful. Some people judge that not belonging to their religion is harmful. Maybe it is, but actually harming someone else to prove it is something I judge to be hypocritical. I judge it to be wrong, but I will not hit back and further the hypocrisy. All I can try to do is oppose it and try to prevent it.

[Griffin NoName]

We have to judge what is harmful.

Nearly introduced "harm" in my last post but decided to go on playing devil's advocate on the tolerance.

Being tolerant is very different to promoting tolerance. Could one say being truly tolerant one would allow harm?
(never mind where we put the line for what defines harm).

[Aggie]

Have you considered that 'Tolerance' may be Toadlish shorthand for a concept which inherently intends the reduction of harm? 

_{Or is this going to be a Very Serious Semantics Thread?  Haven't seen many of those since Omnia.} 

[beagle]

It is a very difficult thing to ask people to think for themselves and think hard enough to resist harming eachother. It should be so simple. In fact, I think it's so simple we just don't bother to be aware of it enough to avoid doing it. But I believe we are capable of it.

Some possible issues.

Who gets to define harm when it comes to say abortion or euthenasia?

How do you agree on a definition of harm when one group thinks this world is all there is, and another believes it is a transitory step to eternal life?

When does turning the cheek become compliance in allowing atrocities to happen?

Here's a concrete example. Most people (me included) admire Gandhi. However, if the whole of India had followed his lead instead of 2.5 million fighting the Axis powers then the Japanese Imperial Army might have broken through into India from Burma with a possible massacre on the scale of Nanking.

Does taking too simplistic a view of harm reduction make you morally culpable for the consequences?  *
Could we ever agree on the complex view?

In other words,  not only may we not be able to agree on a definition of harm we might not be able to agree on the best strategy to minimize it whatever the definition.

-------

*  Shakespeare got here before us, as usual:

"We are not the first.  Who with best meaning have incurred the worst."

[Griffin NoName]

No, I don't think it's semantics. I think it's interesting how each person defines what is harmful, what level of tolerance each person adopts, and how they feel about judgement.

In effect, we are all judging each other and saying we are worthy of being Toadfish. The Vows are ideals not actions. We probably make assumptions about the sorts of actions someone who has agreed to the vows would take in certain situations. But none of it is explicit.

I just find it interesting.