I'll bet you haven't visited Batocchio over at the Vagabond Scholar nearly as often as you'd like, and now maybe your feeling a little guilt, maybe worrying that the crossing-guard or ushers there might recognize you ask you a buncha embarrassing questions about where ya been, and why haven't you been around and so forth.
But nothing could be further from the truth. Batocchio has always been one of nature's noblemen and kind to all, even the lapsed and the wayward.
And lemme tell you, now would be a very good time to head over there, grab a corner booth and settle in for a nice, seven-course meal of well-researched reading.
The appetizer is free --
For the rest of this well-laid table of delights, go here.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014...
Discussions about gay marriage and other LGBT rights, as well as the recent Hobby Lobby decision with its issues of religious belief, have occasionally featured an argument that amounts to 'you're intolerant of intolerance.' Sometimes that argument appears verbatim, or almost so. For instance:
"I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach 'tolerance' that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I'm in the public square."– Kirk Cameron in 2012
"But you're saying we need to tolerate the intolerant!" — I see that objection every time I write something critical of liberaldogmatism and bigotry.To which my stock response is: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying — because that's what liberalism is, or should be, all about. Toleration is perfectly compatible with — indeed, it presupposes — disagreement. That's why it's called tolerance and not endorsement or affirmation.Although such arguments are often sincere, I'd contend they don't survive close scrutiny. John Holbo recently wrote a good post responding to Linker, and pieces earlier in the year from Henry Farrell, djw and Scott Lemieux (one and two) also cover the subject nicely. (The Cameron link above goes to a solid rebuttal by John Aravosis.) Here's another crack at the issue myself (cribbing from some older pieces), on the off-chance a different framework helps. Basically, I'm suggesting that the 'you're intolerant of intolerance' argument stems from a semantic disconnect, ignoring power dynamics and failing to distinguish between beliefs about personal conduct and beliefs about how the overall system should work. There's also confusion about a tolerant system (legal rights) versus public manners (social and cultural norms).
– Damon Linker in 2014