Why do some people think that to be “tolerant” means accepting any and every viewpoint and never saying anything bad about anything? Just because someone has an opinion on something doesn’t mean it’s valid and must be respected. If you (the general you, not you specifically) think there’s something eeeeevil about two girls dating, you’re wrong. If you think Blacks and other minorities are subhuman, you’re wrong. If you think we never landed on the moon, you’re wrong. If you think the Jews are secretly lizard people who control the world from underground bunkers, you’re wrong, etc.
Because that’s generally what it does mean, at least here.
But if enough someones hold an opinion on something then it does become valid and should be respected, IMHO.
Things like “Blacks are subhuman”, “The Moon landings were faked”, or “The Queen is a Lizard” are not only patently absurd, they can be scientifically proven to be utter bollocks. But thinking that two girls shouldn’t be dancing together because it’s immoral (for example) might not be the most progressive of views but I would argue that it’s a valid viewpoint to hold, especially somewhere where “Morality” is an important issue to the local residents.
There’s nothing any more valid about than getting offended by an interracial couple. Tolerance does not extend to tolerating intolerance.
I think there’s also an element of “picking your battles”. If (hypothetical) you live in a small town with 19th century attitudes towards homosexuality and interracial dating and you’re homosexual/dating a person of a different ethnicity, then realistically you’d be better off moving somewhere less backwards (if possible), instead of insisting that the entire town magically change their point of view to suit you.
Yeah, it’s not “right”, but it can also be argued that it’s not “right” that everyone else should accommodate one or two precious snowflakes who go against the prevailing community standards.
Do you have a cite for this? Why would she even ask the principal if it would be ok, if there was already an explicit rule saying it wasn’t? My assumption was that whatever rules there were left out a definition of what constitutes a “couple”, and that the principal made up an interpretation on the spot.
You don’t get it. The school is a public school. Meaning it’s a government institution. They are required to magically change their point of view- or rather, not their point of view, but how they treat these girls.
It’s the town that’s populated with special snowflakes who think that their ‘community standards’ outweigh these lesbians’ rights to attend government functions together. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t matter if they’re offended. People don’t have the right to not be offended.
YES.
that ones for saint lenny
I don’t know about that- we seem to have rather a lot of laws based around that very principle (such as laws against indecent exposure and anti-social behaviour, for example) that do rather suggest people do have the right to not be offended by things, at least in some cases.
I’m reading Polycarp’s remark exactly as he said he intended it – as an analogy – and not as an actual suggestion that you should leave the SDMB. He’s pointing out what he sees as the logical extension of your argument, not telling you that you can’t make that argument.
This is actually an example of what Martini is talking about.
Here we have a thread, in which folks are expressing dismay that a school board would close down prom rather than let two ladies attend together. How backward! What a bigoted knee-jerk reaction!
In the midst of those comments we also get backward, bigoted knee-jerk comments bashing the state of Mississippi. As if homophobia only existed here, not everywhere in the country.
One of the people making such an inane comment notes, in a different thread, that he has* never even been to Mississippi*. Such a good judge of how things are here, isn’t he? :rolleyes:
I’m sorry, that’s hogwash. Eventually someone has to say “no, I’m not going to accept being treated as a non-citizen here, I’m your equal, I have rights just like you, you cannot oppress me.” You can’t always run away, especially not when you’re in the right. And do not be confused for a moment and entertain a thought that these young women are not in the right. They aren’t doing anything that infringes upon anyone else. Their presence at the prom together cannot bring harm to a soul. A girl in pants at the prom can affect absolutely nothing. And more importantly, they have a legal right, affirmed on the federal level, to be there together if that’s their wish, whether it’s as friends or as a romantic pair. Period.
Why in hell should they have to turn tail and run away because the troglodytes in the backwater hell in which they live are too stupid to understand that their personal feelings about homosexuality are binding on absolutely no one else but themselves?
This is true, of course, because with the possible exception of a handful of small states, every state has small pockets dominated by religious conservatives. But it was far likelier to happen in Mississippi for the simple reason that Mississippi is among the most religious and most conservative states in the Union. (Cite) Homophobia is highly correlated to religiosity. (Cite) The anti-gay population of Mississippi is just objectively higher than in most other parts of the country. They banned gay marriage with 86% of the population voting in favor of the law!
It’s fine to defend Mississippi by arguing that every state has its share of different kinds of injustice, but it’s wrong to argue that every state has an equal share of homophobia. That’s just not true.
I don’t disagree with that. But don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical to come into a thread about negative stereotypes and post a negative stereotype?
Wait … 86% of the population? Or 86% of the people who voted that day? 
Missed the edit window…
Found the numbers. It was 957,104 votes in November of 2004. The state’s population then was 2,902,966 people. That’s 33% of the state’s population, not 86%.
I’ve never been to Darfur, either. Yet I’d say that my opinion that it’s not someplace I’d want to live would still be accurate. But you are correct - I defamed some decent people in my effort at a joke. So, I hereby apologize to all the people of Mississippi who don’t have social prejudices that were repugnant 200 years ago, let alone today.
Those who do hold those prejudices, however, I hold with nothing but contempt.
Thank you silenus. I think this bothered me more than it should because I always speak up for school teachers when people are badmouthing them. You had no way of knowing that, of course.
Sure. Comments about Mississippi (or Alabama, or Texas) are often the liberal equivalent of the way some conservatives talk about San Francisco, an obscenely oversimplified caricature based on genuine regional differences.
Of those who voted, which is a good point. The numbers are probably closer since the losing side had no hope of winning.
And maybe, one day in 1955, a middle-aged black woman should have just moved to New York or San Francisco, instead of sticking it out in an Alabama that clearly just didn’t agree with letting her mingle with the white people. But she didn’t run away. She chose something else entirely. And now people can sit wherever they please.
I’m not sure what your argument is here. When people are discriminated against, the proper course of action is… run away?
Do you think laws change magically? That people’s ideas about what is moral and what is not change because the air smells a little different one day? Do you think that one day people in Montgomery, Alabama would have woke up and thought–“hmm, spring is in the air, time for civil rights!”? Things change because people take action. They make waves. They cause a fuss. Things don’t change because someone runs away to New York or whatever haven of liberal ideology you have in mind for this girl. Things change because people stay, and they fight, so that someday, another girl or another boy doesn’t have to run away just so she can go to the prom with her girlfriend (or his boyfriend.)
Sometimes standing up for yourself means that people throw things at you when you try to go to school. Sometimes it means you go to jail for a long time. And sometimes it means you suffer a little negative attention from your schoolmates and then Ellen Degeneres gives you a damn big check. Personally, I’m glad we have moved past the rock throwing stage, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important to fight anymore.
Well, if it’s OK for the school board to cast out the girls from the prom (or cancel it if that’s not allowed) because a majority of the people in the school district disagree with them, then it’s OK for the SDMB to cast you out because the majority of the members disagree with you, right?
Oh, wait–these principles only apply to private message boards with voluntary association, and not to governmental divisions that someone is born into and is forced to deal with, aren’t they? (Or do I have that backwards? I can never tell …)
Teenagers should leave their small town? Right. How does that work, exactly?