by Blender Dumbass

Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".

I do not know how to put it into words, therefor I'm trying to write this article, but it seems like the question of tolerance / intolerance is the wrong kind of question. And it seems like this poor choice of a word to describe a correct concept lead us into the divide that we are experiencing today.

I had written an article earlier where I started noticing that while both sides of the political spectrum are appalled by the other, they seem to be leading a way to the same goal. Just in such a way as to completely ruin any possibility of collaboration. I think this misunderstanding, perhaps due to the poor choices of word, is what makes this collaboration hard.

"Tollerance" is about being patient, but what is there to be patient about?

If a person is wearing a different kind of clothes than what you expect this person to ware. Say a male is wearing female clothes. That has nothing to do with you specifically. The man in question is not attacking you. He is not doing anything toward you. Therefor there is nothing for you to be tolerant about. That man in women's clothes may not even exist for you. There is absolutely 0 connection between you and that person.

There might be if you are a good friend of that person. Or it is a family member of yours. I can understand that a connection could exist. But why on earth one family member, or a friend would ever be bothered enough about fashion choices of the other person that a word like "Tolerance" is suddenly being used?

If my brother wants to ware kinky shit it's his decision. It does not in any way touch me personally. The same way as if my brother went and had sex with another man. Or did anything at all out of the ordinary.

Then why the hell are we using the word "Intolerance" to describe those people who have an issue about something as silly as that? Those "intolerant" people are not in some kind of position where they have to endure something and just lack the stamina to do so. They have as little possible consequence from any gay or trans person out there as any other person. It is just somehow they decided that this is a problem for them, enough to take action against it. It is not intolerance. It is something else.

Hate?

"Hate" is used a lot also to describe the "intolerant". Those people form "Hate groups". They "hate" people of certain type. Of certain deviation of what they see a "normal". Maybe it is a better word. But I think the core of the issue is not particularly "hate". Since those "tolerant" also "hate" those "intolerant". I think the issue lies with "normal" instead.

There is no "normal".

US Air-force once had a problem to solve. Mainly pilots were so uncomfortable in the cockpits of the planes that those planes were often falling down from the skies. They realized that the problem was that the cockpits measurements needed to be re-done to accommodate the new pilots. So they decided to measure an Average Pilot by sampling a very large amount of them.

They ( and by they I mean, one particular researcher Lt. Gilbert S. Daniels, who wrote a paper about it ) saw a problem with their approach. By combining the measurements and constructing a perfect average pilot, he found that non of the pilots were in fact average. And every single one of them was different in one way to another. Article about this. & Video about this from Matt Parker.

If we average out and combine all human traits into an average "normal" human. We will find that non of us ( not on the right side; not on the left side of the political spectrum ). Non of us are normal.

"Intolerant" people seem to not understand that simple fact. And try to force everybody to the unobtainable ideals of "normality". On the other side people are more open to the abnormalities. Not everybody understands the concepts on either side. Both sides have mindless shouters that break logic every-time they open their mouths. But the broad mass of the consensus tend to be moving toward focusing on this one aspect. Normality. One side pro-normality. One side pro-abnormality.

A man is sleeping with another man. Does it happen very often? Not really... It is a minority after all. So therefor it is abnormal. It's not your average behavior. One side says "So what?" The other says "we need to correct this". But why?

I understand the "So what?" statement. I understand a statement of encouragement. I even understand a person that will be disgusted by it. But why is there a person who want to actively correct it? What is bothering them so much about not-them that they are angrily trying to force that other poor person into unobtainable normality? Are they just looking for somebody to hurt? Or is it something else? Is it fear of the unknown? Is it paranoia that they will be obligated to act the same way themselves, sometime in the future? Is it paternalism? Maybe they think that being deviant from the norm is dangerous for some reason. And they want to guard people from that danger. Not realizing that this guarding is in fact paternalistic and very much anti-freedom. Or what is it? And most importantly, is that only happening one side of the political spectrum?

Happy Hacking!!!


0

Find this post on Mastodon

Find

  cptbichez c:0


Interesting you say tolerance is about being patient. In my first language its about "understanding another", once you can't do such brain maneuvers (due to moral/ideas) you're being in-tolerant. And by all that it defines it as a spectrum of tolerance and not a duality of tolerants against intolerant but rather "tolerant until ".
Also once tolerance come across the law its not a question of "tolerant until" its more a case of acceptance or denial.

... replies ( 1 )

  Blender Dumbass c:1



@cptbichez you have given me a thought I had not considered before. The same sounding word can have many different meaning for people that came from many different places. For one x means this, for another the same x means something else. Something related enough, but not the exact same. So we are struggling at communication.

In my first language its about "understanding another"

It seems like understanding another is required in both situations, whether you agree or disagree with the person. If you have somebody you want to get rid of so badly that you make it your life goal, you must first understand what you are dealing with. Going blindly is ignorance. And ignorance is strength only when the party says so.

  Blender Dumbass c:1

... c:0

  cptbichez c:0


Interesting you say tolerance is about being patient. In my first language its about "understanding another", once you can't do such brain maneuvers (due to moral/ideas) you're being in-tolerant. And by all that it defines it as a spectrum of tolerance and not a duality of tolerants against intolerant but rather "tolerant until ".
Also once tolerance come across the law its not a question of "tolerant until" its more a case of acceptance or denial.

@cptbichez you have given me a thought I had not considered before. The same sounding word can have many different meaning for people that came from many different places. For one x means this, for another the same x means something else. Something related enough, but not the exact same. So we are struggling at communication.


It seems like understanding another is required in both situations, whether you agree or disagree with the person. If you have somebody you want to get rid of so badly that you make it your life goal, you must first understand what you are dealing with. Going blindly is ignorance. And ignorance is strength only when the party says so.

Post