Here's another one of those false equivalency articles. Open-minded people are indeed
"colder" to close-minded people and for good reason. We really need to
bring in human development into this picture, something missing from
this article. Those more developed are colder to those lower on the
scale because the latter cause irreparable harm to society, like Dump's
juvenile behavior or greedy corporatists causing income inequality and
environmental disaster. Meanwhile, those lower on the scale want to
eradicate the "elite" from the face of the earth for daring to curtail
their juvenile "me and my tribe's" right to do whatever we want.
And then there's this true statement:
"There’s
an argument to be made that conservative intolerance does more harm
than liberal intolerance, as it targets more vulnerable people." That
the conservatives then feel victimized by progressives defending the
vulnerable against them is purely snowflake whining from those so
privileged, an entirely false equivalence.
The
article does make this distinction when it comes to the climate crisis
in that there is a huge difference between wanting to punish the
denialists who are contributing to the destruction of the planet than
wanting to punish the environmentalists for merely challenging their
false beliefs.
Then the article states this:
"Regardless of who has the more toxic intolerance, the fact remains that
people have trouble getting along." Duh, yeah. Level of toxicity and
level of care and concern is a determining factor in "getting along." Do
we want to "get along" with those who "target more vulnerable people?"
Or do we want to defeat them in elections to mitigate that harm? Will
just being nice to them change one bit their penchant to do harm given
their worldview?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.