Berkeley's Brand of Tolerance

Unbeknownst to me, there's an English guy who is Greek, half-Jewish, gay and very conservative. 

Weird, huh?

This guy has so many political identity categories that it's hard to keep track of them all.

Oh, and he mostly dates black guys.

Meet Milo Yiannopoulos.

I'm not much in the mainstream of trendy things.  Most would say that I'm so far out of the mainstream that I haven't seen flowing water in years.  They'd probably be right.  I came to know about Milo because of the riots at Berkeley last week.  He was scheduled to speak there but lots of people didn't like that much.

Naturally, they did what we Americans do when we don't like what someone has to say: they lit fires, broke windows, and perpetrated general mayhem.

They did this because all Americans know that we cannot and will not tolerate anyone who says something with which we disagree.  We know that we should use our own right to free speech and expression to drown out and intimidate those who oppose us.

I do hope it's obvious that I'm mocking the people who think this way. 

You may think that I've gone too far, that no one really believes that this is how our country should function.

Maybe you think I'm being too dramatic.  If so...

Read this excerpt from a letter to the editor of the LA Times:

White supremacist Yiannopoulos argues, "The left is terrified of free speech."

 

Quite the contrary.  The left has embraced free speech in protesting racist, bigoted, fascist and misogynistic views.  It is not only our 1st Amendment right, but our patriotic duty.

 

Imagine inviting a hooded Ku Klux Klan member to address a publicly funded institution like UC Berkeley.  Yiannopoulos, sans hood, is just that

 

Judith Barden, Long Beach

Apparently, Judith thinks that busting up the place was just the exercise of a 1st Amendment right and a patriotic duty.

Property destruction be damned.

On the other hand, who can find fault with a campus like Berkeley?  It is the seat of the hippie culture.  Tolerance is the linchpin to the entire subculture there.  Their free speech creds are not only intact but immaculate.

Wanna tune in and drop out?  Cool, man.

Wanna stick it to the man?  Right on.

Wanna listen to a gay dude who supports Trump?  Uh, hold on there.  That's hate speech.

Then the name calling begins.  Milo is a Fascist.  Milo is a Nazi.

The part of my brain that does the thinking for me gets so confused.  How can a Jewish gay guy who dates gay black men possibly be a Nazi?

He might be confused, but I think that proving that he's a Nazi would be an uphill battle.

Something else confuses me.  As Americans, we have allowed our language to be corrupted by the left.  Why are we so complacent about our language?

The word I'm talking about is tolerance.  The knuckleheads at Berkeley proclaim tolerance from the rooftops.  They are the "tolerant" ones.  They tell us that if we were like them, that all would be well.

Hmmmm...  If you don't see the problem here, perhaps I can help.

See, they think that tolerant means agreeing with something with which we disagree.  Therefore, in order for me to be 'tolerant,' I'd have to change the way I think.  So, when I change my values and opinions, I become 'tolerant.'

The problem is that they're using the wrong definition of tolerance.  Tolerance means that we disagree with another person but still love and/or respect them as people.  In order for tolerance to even be needed as a tool, there must be a disagreement.

Why on earth would I need to be tolerant of someone with whom I agree?  Tolerance is not a tool needed when agreement is in full bloom.

The point here is not that Milo is right in his views.  I know some of his views, but I'm not a student of Milo.  The point is that he was invited to speak at a university campus by a student organization and that it was called off through means of violence by those who didn't like what he had to say.

That's the point.

I do not like to read or hear opinions that I don't like.  I suspect that you don't like it much, either.  But, I've just spent quite a lot of time reading views which oppose my own so that I could better understand this controversy.  So that I could be better informed about our culture and the ideas which currently drive it.

Culture evolves.  It is never static.  Opinions we once held are sometimes changed.  The only way that I know for me to correct a wrong idea that I have is to be open to that possibility that I'm wrong.  I have to think hard; I have to listen to the opposition.  Sometimes I change; usually I don't.

Imagine if you held all of the same opinions and ideas that you held when you were 16 years old.  You would not be a very effective adult.  Our ideas must grow and modify as we walk through life.

Hearing the voices of those who offend our sensibilities is part of the process.

This is the genius of our forefathers.  The dead white guys, who our political left love to denigrate, had it right.  It was they who championed the speech of their opponents.  It was they who fought and lost their lives and their fortunes to defend the right of an opponent to voice their opinion.

Since then, millions of American warriors have died for the same principle.

Well, Judith, if your view of patriotism is to encourage violent protests against free speech, that's your opinion.

Lots of men and women died for your right to voice that opinion.  They all say, "You're welcome."

I say, "You're wrong."

That's my right.

TheCurmudgeon