"...these are the times that we live in, when opportunity knocks only to be notified of eviction..."

[despair57]

A few days ago, there was an assembly for seniors in which, among other things, Mr. Tabbish talked about suicide. He said that suicide happens because we don't tell the adults around us. He said that school shootings like Columbine happen because no one tells someone when they think it's going to happen. But I noticed that he never talked about

Comments

[despair57]

Concerning the two students:
I'd say their misunderstanding of one another is fine, and isn't representative of the real problem. The problem starts when one kid starts talking about the other behind thier back, starts making fun of them, and basically just hates them because they're different. This isn't about everybody being friends. This is about everyone tolerating everyone else, and not being purposefully exclusionary; making an honest effort. If the effort has been made and two people can't see eye to eye, let them simply tolerate each other.

Concerning segregation:
You raise a good point. However, again, the issue isn't everybody being friends. Since the kids from different races have been thrown into the same school, albeit many years later, they've learned to tolerate one another. Racial violence is a fraction of what it used to be. It isn't a regular occurence that someone is made fun of only because of their race anymore. You're asking two different questions. Can you force people to like each other? No. Never. Everybody will never like everybody else. But yet again, the issue isn't everybody being friends. Can tolerance really be forced? I think so. I think that while no one has to like anyone, if we want to live together, everyone should have to tolerate everyone else as long as they aren't directly harmed by doing so. But that wasn't my idea. My idea was to make people see the evils of intolerance and voluntarily stop doing it. Not everyone would go along with it. Many people wouldn't. But I also think that many people would. Most people hate intolerance as an ideal, but don't realize that they practice it. I think that many of those people could be enlightened.

[syrax]

First thing, the rather uncomforting statement: "Can tolerance really be forced? I think so."

How exactly can elitism be overcome? The majority of people (the majority is assured, though I'm tempted to say almost everyone) would still be totally intolerant. What exactly is the evil of intolerance? How would you handle the inevitable amazing repression that follows? Etc.

[despair57]

Note that I didn't say forcing tolerance is a good thing.

Elitism can't be overcome. The majority of people would still be intolerant. The idea is to get as many people as possible to cut back on their elitism.

What exactly is the evil of intolerance? Well, first of all, in this case, elitism refers to intolerance of other people, not intolerance in general. It's not evil to be intolerant of cheese, for example. I believe that it is evil to be intolerant of other people as long as they aren't directly causing harm to you or someone else. Everyone is different from everyone else. We need to live together in order to participate in society. When someone is intolerant of someone else, that person is ignoring that need; that person is causing harm to society by choosing not to live togther with someone but shunning them instead. This is the reason society has problems; this is the reason that society does not work. Everyday, intolerance leads people to assault, vandalize, disparge and even kill other people, either because they are intolerant of those people or because those people are intolerant of them. If everyone would just tolerate everyone else, we could all live together as a society and society would be effective. This can't happen. But I believe that by reducing the amount of intolerance, we can reduce the amount of problems.

[syrax]

Intolerance of cheese, intolerance of other people, intolerance of races, the question still stands. Intolerance that hurts other people is not innately evil. Is society neccesarry? It seems to have failed pretty bad, but we still have about a half century to find out if it really has failed miserably.

Decreasing suffering by a noticeable percent is a start, but then you're going to have to figure out how to decrease it more. The problem with improvement is that you don't do it for the sake of the journey, you do it because perfection is a practical goal. Utopia is a possibility.

But, nonetheless, why does it have to be through society? Why do we need to preserve this world? What does a population of 6 billion do for us that a population of 6 million can't achieve the same essence?

[despair57]

It's a good question, but how do we stop the population? Do people volunteer to kill themselves, or do we do mass exterminations? Unless there's some good way to do it, we need to just deal with the increasing population that we have. That's where tolerance comes in.

If society is not necessary, then you're right, intolerance isn't evil. But I disagree that decreasing suffering is only a start. I think that a perfect world is impossible, but that a better one is not. What's wrong with a world that still sucks but is better than the one we have now?

[syrax]

I do believe in a perfect world, though. I think utopia not only can exist, but it's very practical and even stupid to say that we shouldn't demand it.

The justification against society is that you can't save it or destroy it. It simply will collapse on its own and destroy itself without your help.

Really, there's not even that much evil in the world. People will be natural and they will be living creatures and they use logic and they don't use fictional emotions. We generally can prevent any bad thing that happens to us, though. In that, we deserve it. No one said you had to participate in society or life nor did anyone say you had a right to either. Since people fear death, they have an exploitable weakness that is a corruption of logic.