Reality Check: What are the limits of cultural diversity?

[Gary Childress]

Is tolerance by itself absolutely self contradictory as an ideal?

Obvious recent examples:

Making gay marriage legal apparently infringes on the freedom of some people to exercise or express their distaste for homosexuality.

Making confederate flags or swastikas illegal apparently infringes on the freedom of some people to be white supremacists or racists or whatever.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the reasons why people resist gay marriage or turn to racism but are racists and bigots becoming a persecuted minority? And if so, who is persecuting them? The tolerant? The people they once tormented? "Liberals? Who? Are LGBT people and people of color getting special privileges which the rest of us aren't?

Has the world tipped on its head and now the LGBT community and other minorities are in danger of taking over the world and becoming a privileged class or bigoted and intolerant toward their former tormentors?

What is the reality here?

I grew up in the 1970s. It was shortly after the second world war, after the civil rights movement, and after the various independence movements of many third world countries from first world colonialism. Something that became ingrained in me from an early age in the education system I grew up in was the notion of diversity and tolerance toward people who are different than I am. It was a sign of the times and seemed like an optimistic one. But lately many people seem to think that diversity is really just "political correctness" and "repression" of some kind. Those of us who believe in diversity are simply "thought police" or something.

Is this true? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Does anyone here NOT believe in cultural diversity and tolerance toward people who are different (so long as they abide by basic principles of human rights and don't harm others)? And if so, why don't you believe in cultural diversity? What is wrong with it?

I'm making this a "real discussion" thread so let's all try to keep things relatively civil with those we disagree with and try to arrive at some "real" answers.

 

[warpus]

Has the world tipped on its head and now the LGBT community and other minorities are in danger of taking over the world and becoming a privileged class or bigoted and intolerant toward their former tormentors?

No.

Is this true? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Diversity can work, but it doesn't have to.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think there is still a small amount of room left in our cultural diversity to have a few still clinging to 19th century cultural norms.

 

[Zkribbler]

Is tolerance by itself absolutely self contradictory as an ideal?

No.

Making gay marriage legal apparently infringes on the freedom of some people to exercise or express their distaste for homosexuality.

Acknowledging gays have equal rights in no way infringes with other people's ability to express distaste for homosexuality.

I'm not sure what you mean by "exercising" distaste. Perhaps something like the so-called Christian doctor who refused to treat the sick, adopted child of a lesbian couple because "her religion forbade it." Many if not all states forbid discrimination in commercial enterprises. I remember when then-Vice-President Johnson described the difficulty if not near impossibility for his black constituents to travel from Texas to Washington DC to meet with him due to lack of hotels and restaurants who would serve blacks. However, this debate was resolved a half century ago, and I have no desire to return to the days of pervasive discrimination.

Making confederate flags or swastikas illegal apparently infringes on the freedom of some people to be white supremacists or racists or whatever.

Every movement contains advocates who try to go "a bridge to far." It's only a tiny percentage who advocate making the confederate battle flag illegal. To me, it's a form of speech protected by the Constitution. The main push is the removal of the flag from state buildings, from off the state flag, etc. I support that because I view the flag as a symbol of white supremacy, which no state should be advocating.

Germany indeed as outlawed Nazi symbols, such as the swastika. I see this as "a bridge too far." Germany filmmakers wishing to make a moving about WWII have to do cinematographic gymnastics to portray Nazis, Nazi weapons, etc. without using their symbols. Sorry, this is just silly.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the reasons why people resist gay marriage or turn to racism but are racists and bigots becoming a persecuted minority? And if so, who is persecuting them? The tolerant? The people they once tormented? "Liberals? Who? Are LGBT people and people of color getting special privileges which the rest of us aren't?

The only "persecution" of bigots I see is the prevention of them practicing discrimination in the workplace, and as I said above, that debate was settled a half century ago.

Has the world tipped on its head and now the LGBT community and other minorities are in danger of taking over the world and becoming a privileged class or bigoted and intolerant toward their former tormentors?

Until I retired 6 years ago, the office I worked in included a gay guy who kept us abreast of advancement in gay rights. He told us when California changed to law so that gays could serve on juries, and when gays were allowed to donate blood. Now, they are finally legally allowed to marry.

I see no evidence of them becoming a "privileged" class or "taking over the world." In many states it's still lawful to discriminate against them in employment.

 

[bhavv]

Should nazis have a right to assemble and full free speech allowing them to spread their hatred against whomever the hate?

It would still be less offensive than the full teachings of xtianity and Islam.

 

[BvBPL]

But lately many people seem to think that diversity is really just "political correctness" and "repression" of some kind. Those of us who believe in diversity are simply "thought police" or something.

Realistically, there are always going to be parties who cannot engage with the greater majority who will be pushing for greater acceptance under a movement towards diversity. Equally, there will always be reactionaries who oppose change. Movements for diversity and their reactionaries will always be with us. It is natural for people both attempt to work towards a more egalitarian society and react negatively towards those same reforms.

What's changing how the diversity discussion is engaged. Fifty years ago, the civil rights movement was marked with extremely violent reactions. The movement to create gay rights since Stonewall has been much more civil and faster, relative to the fight for black Americans to have civil rights since the Civil War. The movement towards transgender rights will likely be more civil and faster still.

The contemporary debate regarding political correctness and the reconstruction of our discussion is thought control. When Olympia passed out new guidelines about official terms, advising against terms such as "brown bag" and suggesting "yeoperson" over "yeoman," that was thought control. It was an attempt to force people to reconsider the terms they use to the goal of being more inclusive. That sort of thought control isn't necessarily offensive, but people still oppose it because people will generally want to maintain their habits rather than have change imposed.

That sort of thing is generally fine, but it can become problematic. For example, there's a movement afoot regarding cultural appropriation, the adoption of elements from a minority culture by the majority culture. Some people become very offended when this occurs. For example, and I am purposefully taking what is probably the most offensive example I can readily devise, Indians can be offended when other people where traditional Indian war bonnets. The war bonnet is, traditionally, an award to a powerful war leader or other position of honor.

Concern about cultural appropriation is problematic because it generally only serves to raise the noise to signal ratio in the debate over inclusiveness. There are material injustices and inequalities faced by people from minority cultures, and condemning those who appropriate cultural symbols does nothing to address these material issues. Few, if any, people from minority cultures have lost jobs, been red lined, or suffered physical violence because a white guy wore a war bonnet. The bluster over cultural appropriation is energy that could have been used to address material concerns rather than purely emotional ones.

So there is a line where the push for inclusiveness becomes less effective at achieving material change and begins to cannibalize itself. That line probably changes over time. For example, one could imagine that pushing for a woman in a high state position at a time contemporaneous with the suffrage movement might not have been helpful to the movement. Hopefully there will be a time in the future when the material inequalities suffered by minorities cultures are so minor that cultural appropriation is the most significant concern, but that time is a long, long way off.

So I'd say the problems are a general human behavior to oppose changes to existing habits and an overzealous push towards broader reforms rather than more important or achievable goals underlies most of the opposition here. More likely the former than the latter.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Is tolerance by itself absolutely self contradictory as an ideal?

Obvious recent examples:

Making gay marriage legal apparently infringes on the freedom of some people to exercise or express their distaste for homosexuality.

Making confederate flags or swastikas illegal apparently infringes on the freedom of some people to be white supremacists or racists or whatever.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the reasons why people resist gay marriage or turn to racism but are racists and bigots becoming a persecuted minority? And if so, who is persecuting them? The tolerant? The people they once tormented? "Liberals? Who? Are LGBT people and people of color getting special privileges which the rest of us aren't?

Has the world tipped on its head and now the LGBT community and other minorities are in danger of taking over the world and becoming a privileged class or bigoted and intolerant toward their former tormentors?

Taking over? No.

When you say "other minorities" which ones are you referring to, specifically?

I grew up in the 1970s. It was shortly after the second world war, after the civil rights movement, and after the various independence movements of many third world countries from first world colonialism. Something that became ingrained in me from an early age in the education system I grew up in was the notion of diversity and tolerance toward people who are different than I am. It was a sign of the times and seemed like an optimistic one. But lately many people seem to think that diversity is really just "political correctness" and "repression" of some kind. Those of us who believe in diversity are simply "thought police" or something.

Is this true? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Does anyone here NOT believe in cultural diversity and tolerance toward people who are different (so long as they abide by basic principles of human rights and don't harm others)? And if so, why don't you believe in cultural diversity? What is wrong with it?

There is a whole generation (25 years) between the end of WWII and 1970. A lot of social change happened during that time, all over the world. In Canada, in the late '60s there was this charismatic French-Canadian, Catholic Minister of Justice named Pierre Trudeau, who uttered a sentence that has echoed down through the decades to this very day: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." He was talking about repealing the sodomy laws at the time, but this idea applies equally to same-sex marriage. Many years later, in 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage all across Canada. The then-premier of my province was promptly deluged with "Use the notwithstanding clause so we don't have to put up with this!!! " and there was much handwringing and bigoted letters to the newspaper. I even had an argument with my dad about this - surprising to me, since he'd never before said anything against minorities. He said he didn't have anything against civil unions and equal rights, but "why did they have to call it marriage"?

Well, duh. 'Cause that's what it is. Just a few days ago on CBC.ca someone asked why a gay couple would want to get married in a church. My response: "Maybe they might be Christian? That's a good enough reason."

Cultural diversity and multiculturalism are a part of what it means to be Canadian - for most of us, anyway. There are some who are still stuck in the dark ages of bigotry and refuse to acknowledge how nonsensical it is to whine about being oppressed because they're not allowed to discriminate against others or stand in the middle of the town square and bellow hate speech-filled rants.

Canada Day is coming up on Wednesday. If I were still able-bodied enough to sit on a hillside all day and enjoy the Folk Festival, that's where I'd be - enjoying a day of music and food from all over the world.

Should nazis have a right to assemble and full free speech allowing them to spread their hatred against whomever the hate?

Of course not.

 

[Zkribbler]

Should nazis have a right to assemble and full free speech allowing them to spread their hatred against whomever the hate?

It would still be less offensive than the full teachings of xtianity and Islam.

I'm trying to remember which US Supreme Court justice said, "The answer to bad speech is not less speech but more speech."

I tremble at the thought of surrendering to some govt agency the power to decide what political ideas we can and cannot talk about.

 

[Agent327]

Like the 'govt agency' that gave you the Constitution?

 

[Domen]

I wonder what is the definition of cultural diversity, first of all.

In America you can have a neighbourhood with people from 40 different European countries, and leftists will say that it is not diverse enough. On the other hand, a neighbourhood with 90% of population from Mexico and 10% from Ghana is considered highly diverse.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Very early in life with my bigot dad I was brought up against the paradox of "if you claim to be tolerant you must tolerate my intolerance." It took me a while to work out that NO, I actually don't. Now I have channeled all the expressions of intolerance that he taught me into a blazing fury against bigots, who I will happily assault with every bit of nastiness at my command.

Did that answer the question?

 

[bhavv]

The thing is though that free speech should allow nazis to assemble and speak whatever they want.

And in doing so, other people can counter that with how wrong their speech is.

Otherwise you dont have freedom of speech.

 

[warpus]

The thing is though that free speech should allow nazis to assemble and speak whatever they want.

Anything they want except for things that are illegal, such as hate speech against protected classes of people.

 

[bhavv]

But that infringes on their rights to free speech?

 

[Domen]

As for the Confederate flag - I've recently seen a video by the American Renaissance organization, in which it was claimed that the original goal of the North in the Civil War was to liberate Blacks from slavery AND to ship them back to Africa after that. While the South opposed the end of slavery, but also advocated for allowing Black people to stay, rather than transporting all of them back to Africa (either to Africa or to Northern factories as cheap labour) - as the Northerners supposedly wanted.

Is this true?

And if true, then why was the plan of shipping them back to Africa not implemented?

I guess it was implemented, but only partially:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

 

[Tahuti]

Do onto others as others do onto you. Try to tolerate every culture, suppress cultures that are out to destroy others.

 

[warpus]

But that infringes on their rights to free speech?

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. Yelling "fire" in a theatre will get you in legal trouble, for example, unless there is an actual fire in progress. As will libel. As will hate speech against protected classes.

There are limits to freedom, even in America.

 

[Tahuti]

Our ancestors would laugh at our characterisation of freedom nowadays. Freedom to read a piece of paper with utter nonsense that fills the coffers of some cynical suits and literati at the expense of people dumb enough to not know probably wouldn't be their imagination of 'freedom'.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Freedom of speech was intended to maintain political discourse, not encourage the spouting of nonsense. It restrains the government from silencing its critics, but was enacted in a time where if you slandered me to my face and I beat you to death there was a very good probability that a jury would say "okay, he had that coming," if law enforcement even bothered to ask a jury about it. Our modern world of "oh my, we can't be violent" has allowed free speech to expand into areas in which it was never intended to apply.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Is tolerance by itself absolutely self contradictory as an ideal?

Obvious recent examples:

Making gay marriage legal apparently infringes on the freedom of some people to exercise or express their distaste for homosexuality.

Making confederate flags or swastikas illegal apparently infringes on the freedom of some people to be white supremacists or racists or whatever.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the reasons why people resist gay marriage or turn to racism but are racists and bigots becoming a persecuted minority? And if so, who is persecuting them? The tolerant? The people they once tormented? "Liberals? Who? Are LGBT people and people of color getting special privileges which the rest of us aren't?

Has the world tipped on its head and now the LGBT community and other minorities are in danger of taking over the world and becoming a privileged class or bigoted and intolerant toward their former tormentors?

What is the reality here?

I grew up in the 1970s. It was shortly after the second world war, after the civil rights movement, and after the various independence movements of many third world countries from first world colonialism. Something that became ingrained in me from an early age in the education system I grew up in was the notion of diversity and tolerance toward people who are different than I am. It was a sign of the times and seemed like an optimistic one. But lately many people seem to think that diversity is really just "political correctness" and "repression" of some kind. Those of us who believe in diversity are simply "thought police" or something.

Is this true? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Does anyone here NOT believe in cultural diversity and tolerance toward people who are different (so long as they abide by basic principles of human rights and don't harm others)? And if so, why don't you believe in cultural diversity? What is wrong with it?

I'm making this a "real discussion" thread so let's all try to keep things relatively civil with those we disagree with and try to arrive at some "real" answers.

Personally, I don't think tolerance needs to include tolerance of intolerance, because there are other values one ought to consider. For example, let's say one restaurant refuses service to a couple dressed as Nazis, and another restaurant refuses service to two men because they're holding hands and whispering in each other's ear. Are those morally equivalent? No, because one couple is expressing a philosophy of death and destruction and the other couple is expressing affection. I think it's alright to say that one couple can go F themselves and the other couple can have a table by the window. If that's a limitation on tolerance and diversity, I'm fine with it.

That said, I don't think I would declare that restaurants must refuse service to Nazis, but I haven't thought that one through well enough to be able to say why.