CTclay
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/6/2004
Status: offline
|
Ah, so much error on this message board, so little time to correct it all! What's a poor sub to do! But BeachMystress is first in line:
quote:
You're sitting there preaching tolerance and non judgement of attitudes,
No no no no nonononono! Tolerance good. Nonjudgmentalism bad! Two totally different things. I have some strong opinions, some not so strong, but I tolerate the opinions of others as much as I can, even as I disagree with them, sometimes so strongly that I condemn them -- judge them. I don't think there's any contradiction at all. In fact, you can't be tolerant unless you have opinions to disagree with. Otherwise you're not being tolerant, just apathetic. And no, you can't be tolerant of everything, you do have to pick and choose.
The middle part of your message ("yet you feel it necessary to condom people for their attitudes and desires? You also felt it necessary to explain how we are all wrong in our idea of what is and is not acceptable in our expectations of submissives. Who died and made you arbiter of what is and isn't correct for people?") could be read as criticizing anybody for offering strong opinions. It's a message board. People express opinions here -- sometimes strong opinions. Some opinions should be strong. Why not, if they can be expressed without being rude?
As for condemning people -- no, I was condeming an attitude. I've already made it clear I'm not condemning the people -- I admire and respect you all. But I feel strongly about this, and I think it's best to shout loudly about this particular disagreement.
Sherri, your reply confuses me and just gives me more questions:
You similtaneously insist that you're not intolerant, but you also say that political differences are moral differences ("it comes down to basically the same thing *for me*"). That sounds like you're saying people who disagree with your politics are immoral. I don't know any other way to read that. Do you really believe that?
Do you really believe that people who think Problem A is more important than Problem B are always necessarily immoral because you think Problem B is more important? That's what most political differences are about, and different conclusions can be reached for all sorts of different reasons, many having nothing to do with morality.
Even people with the same exact moral outlook can be conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian -- because they draw different conclusions about what works, what society is like, what people can be expected to do or not do, not because some of them are deficient in morals.
If I think rich people should be forced to give up all of their money to the poor when they die, who are you to call me immoral? If I think that such a policy wouldn't really work in the real world, who are you to call me immoral? Can't I be foolish, stupid, misinformed, not-have-my-head-screwed-on-straight but still moral? Can I be foolish, stupid, etc. in politics but not in life in general? I know plenty of people like that, and so do you.
Immorality is one of those things that we shouldn't tolerate, so it sounds like you're justifying intolerance. I couldn't tolerate a Nazi or a terrorist because they have political beliefs that are immoral. I hope you're not saying that people who disagee with your politics are something like Nazis -- immoral because of their politics.
You say you're tolerant of family and people in your work place who have different politics, but you could never be intimate with someone with different politics. Why? Where does the discomfort enter into it? Are you uncomfortable with these other people? What would make you uncomfortable with a lover or with someone in some kind of BDSM relationship who had different politics?
On a day-to-day level, you ARE intimate in many ways with people you work with, just as you are with family and friends in other ways -- especially the ways that are relevant to politics. You don't have sex with them or pillow talk, and you probably don't open up to them (in SOME ways) as much as you would with a lover. I don't get how differences in politics would screw that up.
You write about heterosexuals/homosexuals, Christians/Jews, vegetarians/meat-eaters -- but that's all relevant only if those differences create practical differences in the relationship. In the abstract, I'd rather marry a woman with the same religion as me because it's easier to raise children in a particular religion when both parents are in it together. If I didn't have that practical reason, it wouldn't bother me. If I meet a woman who was right in every other way, then I'd have to weigh how important that factor was, but the whole process would be as practical as possible. Otherwise, it would be intolerance on my part -- and I'd be the loser more than anyone else.
Essentially, you say that politics are "core values," and I say they're only core values when they involve significant differences in morality. If you call differences in politics differences in morality, then I think you're being intolerant. I'd say the definition of intolerance is being unable to be flexible about those things that you should be flexible about.
Personally, I'd be intolerant of a bunch of things in a potential significant other. If she dies her hair orange or doesn't bathe, I can't tolerate that, and proud of it. But I admit it.
Suz:
The abortion scenario could happen with anyone of any political stripe. That's not a political difference so much as a moral and practical difference.
You say controlling a submissive is always consensual with you. Great. But then you write as if having elections and electing people to legislate on moral matters is not legit. Yet that's the way society consents, and all laws are essentially legislating morality. We're free to let someone else bind us up, either in BDSM play or in society. You agree with some of the legislated morality, I'm sure -- laws about robbing banks, rape, statutory rape are all legislated morality.
You write: "I would have a tough time being involved on more than a casual basis with someone who would participate in the attempt to impose their morality on me via our legislative process." But you're just as guilty as the other guy of attempting to impose morality. We've imposed our morality on all the people in prison. If the law doesn't get passed, that's an imposition on some people (say the law on robbing banks isn't passed -- you've imposed your morality on bank depositors or bankers by deciding not to impose it on bank robbers; same with abortion or anything else). This is just another way of stating that you don't like certain political viewpoints.
Then you talk about hypocrisy as if only conservatives have it. You know that's not true.
Sounds like you're just angry at certain right-wingers. What's the difference between that and intolerance? Oh, there is none: "I hope that I remain intolerant of anyone who would legislate my morality."
So you're intolerant. So don't date legislators who are legislating your morality. But even people who would vote for them and agree with them?
I find it interesting that ProtagonistLily, who's involved in politics, is more open to being intimate with people of different political persuasions. Very often people who are most involved in politics are the most tolerant. I think it's because they see the limits of politics.
Sorry this is so long. I hope you'll all reconsider.
|
RE: When politics clash - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread