So your saying that our country is going to tear itself apart, politically speaking at least? Or am I reading too much into things?

I'm not sure I want to make any predictions. I've just been looking around, judging the results of the recent election, and some the points both sides like to make. Labeling, polarizing, and generally less tolerance or respect for other opinions.

Bigotry and other forms of intolerance have always existed. The climate seems extremely charged right now, and it worries me.

TBT

Very good, Taboo!

I read some of your other posts and you seem like you are worried about your liberal party, lol! But you are right. What do you think of anti-semetism? Or racism? Do you think the fringes on both sides cause people to become bigots out of self-defense, when they lose their comfort zone?

Very interesting.

Eric

Social intolerance stems from power:when groups in society seek to dominate or establish control over other groups then there is intolerance. Physical differences are given cultural and historical significance and the porous borders of groups are rendered more firm. This results in more intolerance. NBationalism is the ultimate product of such progressively generated intolerance backed by the might of the state.

The only way to break this bond between social, ethnic and racial intolerance is to explore the power structures which depend on such intolerance.

Reply #4 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 11/23/2004 1:37:02 AM Social intolerance stems from power:when groups in society seek to dominate or establish control over other groups then there is intolerance. Physical differences are given cultural and historical significance and the porous borders of groups are rendered more firm.

Well, I would agree with you that when one group attempts to dominate another, a side effect is intolerance. But when dominance is the motivation, intolerance often is simply a propaganda tool, a way of controling history, the present, therefore the future (think Orwell). Dominance is different than intolerance, though sometimes the two overlap.

What I really think causes intolerance is love of comfort. Love of comfort is not necessarily a push for luxury, but a stubborn addiction to the way things are. "The way things are" by definition conflicts with what I see as inevitable evolution. When this happens quickly, like it seems to be happening now, then the moderate middle loses its indentity and, in seeking comfort, must stretch itself to include more radical beliefs. When this happens in turn, there is no balance. All that remains is intolerance.

What do you think of anti-semetism? Or racism? Do you think the fringes on both sides cause people to become bigots out of self-defense, when they lose their comfort zone?

The word "people" is a good one, I think. I think the fringes tend to make everyone less comfortable, especially in times of rapid change.

Look at places where revolution is taking place, or where dictators came to power. The Russian revolution saw the red party take control in order to eliminate the class structure. Lenin-ism and certainly Stalin -ism, however, became perversions of their ideals when they felt they had to stablize the power of their party. Some of the original party supporters were labeled as fringe sympathizers, and traitors, and were killed. Jews were killed in droves, though they in no way threatened the overall ideology, because of the great labeling that subsequently took place.

If you prefer to look at the population-at-large, post-WWI Germany shows a devastated people forced through rapid change. The middle ground had been abolished, and realigned with the strengthening ultra-right. of course, everyone, not just the left suffered the consequences.

TBT

"For the sake of argument" doesn't do well beyond the first couple lines. Not only is it a sorry attempt to dig your heels in, but it's also very annoying to keep reading. I didn't read the first couple of words of your last 16 lines, but I assume they all said "For the sake of argument." You're wrong because you're annoying.

Great article, very thought provoking.

You're wrong because you're annoying.

So I go to AKSnoman's blog to see if he really is this much of a prick. Not surprised to see he site is titled 'Inflammatory Responses', lol...sometimes the jokes just write themselves

Good Article. But the way to stop the slide into anarchy or civil war is to keep the center, and not start adopting the fringe elements, regardless of the pressure.

that is why we have majority rule. The right, with the center, will not allow the left to implement their extremes, and the left, with the center, will not allow the right to implement their extremes.

But all in all, a good thought provoking article.

Dr. Guy:

Thank you for your comments.

Reply #9 By: Dr. Guy - 11/23/2004 8:07:36 AM Good Article. But the way to stop the slide into anarchy or civil war is to keep the center, and not start adopting the fringe elements, regardless of the pressure.

I would agree with you. But it seems to me that politics work the wrong way. The moderate center reaches out to the fringes in order to retain power. The polarization of the center happens automatically, or so it seems.


Often, the center does not need to reach all the way to the fringes to maintain power, though. When the nation heads through less dynamic forms of change, the middle's reach sticks to "mainstream" support from either side, rather that the fringes. But when many things happen at the same time, then the middle is forced to stretch beyond its limit.

And I also feel like the center does allow the fringes to establish policy in some areas of life when the balance of power is in jeopardy. When that happens, you get hasty laws that may be partially good or bad, but do not have the general population. Depending on your own political perspective, I'm guessing you have one or two laws or policies you'd like to see seriously revised or even overturned.

Thanks again,

TBT