Last week saw a band of "Christians" march around the Diag with signs proclaiming words of wisdom like "AIDS: The Homosexuals Contribution to the World!" and pointing at students and saying things like "Hey, you're on the path to Hell" to them. This pseudo-religious behavior (cross ref. pseudointellectual) is just one example of the end of tolerance in America.
From the hate-propagation of Amendment 2 in Colorado, to the divisive, classist overtures of the Contract with America, to the violence and bitterness surrounding the legality of abortion and its government funding, we are constantly reminded of intolerant attitudes in this country. Even a certain murder trial (which you will find nowhere in this newspaper) was clouded by issues of racism - a racist cop and allegations of planted evidence, and the opinion that no black man could get a fair trial.
All of this intolerance stems from intentions that are wellĞmeant. Yes, that's right. Like it or not, these hateĞmongers are not bad or evil or malicious. Deep inside of them, they feel a fundamental calling on some issue. Religious folk have what is, at least from their standpoint, wholesome reasons to oppose homosexuality. The Republicans once believed that the whole country would benefit from "trickle- down" economics of aiding the rich instead of the poor. Somewhere along the way, however, that good intention got muddled by the ever-fallible human mind.
You see, intolerance is a function of confusion and not malice. People lose track of the fact that they are hurting people, and often, having a destructive impact on their own cause. It all starts with something I call the "debater's itch." (No, if you're asking, its not a bacterial infection.) It's that urge that forces you to argue with someone, even over the most minute points. Some people are worse than others. We intellectuals are the worst culprits of all. We get used to having "discussions" with our peers, the friends we trust to be able to withstand a good, violent argument. Then we unthinkingly assault an emotionally-weaker person, and accidentally rip their spine out. You know how it is.
Over the years, through countless arguments and debats, some of the worst Republicans came to equate the failings of the poor with evil. Some Christians began to hate the sinner instead of the sin they perceive. After so many encounters with racists, some would-be political scientists began to associate skin color with racism, and assume that every white is racist and every black is a victim. This seems to happen in even the most trivial debates - I have seen people call each other fools and jerks simply because of the kind of computer they have on their desktop. Its inevitable because the logical and emotional parts of our minds are not seperated by a void as we'd like to think. When we get excited about a debate, emotion substitutes fact and we begin to dislike or even hate people for no intelligent reason.
Of course, even this very root of intolerance is, itself, grounded in good intentions. We don't want our friends to go around with misconceptions, and for some reason, we think that we're right. It's just when our friends disagree strongly, they become offended and are hurt by our arguments.
Immediately, it should be noticed that it is almost impossible to make someone else more tolerant than they already are. This is no more than the intolerant argument that started the problem to begin with. That's what makes our good intentions incompatible with tolerance: other people think they're right too, and even more, they don't like to be wrong.
So, maybe we should all stop arguing. Just let everything slide. What? One of your friends is telling the other that bit about the panthers in front of the Natural Science Museum? Just let it slide. Now he's telling him that Thermodynamics is the easiest class he ever took? Don't even comment. The problem with this tactic is obvious too. Pretty soon, people will be driving off broken bridges to their nasty deaths by the thousands, taking news broadcasts at face-value, and Vanilla Ice will get a renewed record contract.
The simple truth is that there are times when we cannot let our friends (or even our enemies) continue to be wrong. Issues of safety, of prosperity, of religious significance, in short, of life and death, whether academic, spiritual, emotional, or physical. There are others too; sometimes we know that letting someone be wrong will eventually cause trouble that outweighs the value of learning from mistakes.
What, then, are the things that are worth arguing about, and what are not? This is the hardest question of all, and, ironically, the one that will feature the most dissent. In my opinion, you have to balance the effects of arguing with those of letting things be as they are. In the end, it is inevitable that some of the things I say will hurt people, but, inasmuch as I can, I feel the need to avoid hurting people unnecessarily. One question I try to ask myself is, "Will they be hurt by their errors before they can find understanding on their own?"
Of course, this is the easier part of the solution. The hard part is knowing when your own beliefs and opinions are too questionable to be forced upon other people. Like it or not, its essentially impossible for any of us to be absolutely right all the time. Furthermore, its nearly impossible to understand an issue as it pertains to someone else perfectly. I think this is what those "preachers" on the Diag forgot. Homosexuals don't want to be told that they are a plague upon the nation, and they don't want to be forcibly converted into heterosexuals. This is obvious; no one likes to be told, "(Insert a label here) are bad and evil and God should strike them down!" No one that I know, at the least.
There is an old, well-known aphorism that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. Perhaps this is a good lesson for those who find they must argue, whether in a specific case, or just in general. If they have to try and convert someone to their paradigm, then they at least should do it nicely. Oddly enough, people will occasionally admit they are wrong when prodded gently. That's not to say that one should prod everyone gently to conform until humanity is a race of clones; a gentle crusader isn't much better than a crass one.
Sadly, the most intolerant people are the ones who should know better. They are people who know what it is to be despised, who know what pain is, and who fear the power of hatred. The only way to stop this problem is to be more tolerant to others, and hope to convert them by your example. Truly, tolerance is the forgotten family value, the one virtue that conveniently gets left in the closet when the zealots go out to play.