There's a few holes in that. First, you've got sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic. From some queer people I know saying that they had experiences which changed their mind or that there was some choice (that "lived experience" people go on about, as well as some of my own) to the quite obvious political stratagem of saying someone was "born that way" as a way to deflect blame (which never really held much water; a group willing to accept Original Sin as a concept would find Born That Way to be little more than a speedbump).
And then you bring in tabula rasa, which itself contradicts "born that way." But sure, let's just ignore that paradox. Can we think of other born characteristics we might not find appealing? Quite a lot of personality disorders appear to arise from genetics, and yet you might find someone with Borderline Personality Disorder less than optimal company. Must you tolerate that?
Consistency, if anything, is a poor metric when it comes to anything as complex as people. "Destroy anyone not of my ethnic group" is consistent and simple. Do not fall in love with either.
If anything, the concept of tolerance itself is a trap, creating dividing lines everywhere. Worse yet, it allows someone to feel "just." This is perhaps one of the more dangerous emotions one can experience and consider as moral. A person who thinks of themselves as just is "justfied." Examine the words associated with "justified," even the television show. Consider the history of those who thought of themselves as justified. I feel just, I may then relent on my self-examination. It's a way to sidestep the endless labor of wondering, "Am I doing something right?" Observing, thinking, considering: these are all weights that humans quite naturally want to put down.
How easy, how self-satisfying it is to say "Punch that Nazi!" And of course you first must judge that person to be a Nazi, but even before that you're twiddling your definitions, making them expansive enough to pin that label on someone, all for the simple joy of feeling like it is okay to hit someone, that they are evil and deserving. The ecstasy of self-righteousness ought to be Schedule I.
Give me uncertainty and doubt. Dispel that self-assurance. Going around deciding whom to tolerate invites judgment, as if one were all-knowing and infallible. We are not.
Sexual orientation being immutable or not really isn't that big a deal. Not hating people because of their immutable characteristics was chosen as relatively uncontroversial manifestation of my axiomatic belief of innocence by default. People are good, unless they do something bad. Probably should have phrased it as the more accurate "non-harmful" characteristics, in hindsight.
Once your philosophy is consistent, there's little room for philosophical debate. Faced with someone with the philosophy of "Destroy anyone not of my ethnic group", the course of action isn't to debate philosophy with them. It's to shoot them. That's why it's important to have a consistent ideology: So you know when the time for words has ended. At that point, "Punch that Nazi" is a good start.
So, if you have two individuals or groups with self-consistent philosophies that are not congruent to one another, you auto-default to violence?
I am remembering that Jane Elliot experiment with kids, blue eyes vs. brown eyes. If the brown-eyed kids think they are the best, and the blue-eyed kids think they are the best, the time for words has ended. Let's start the slaughter.
Most of the time the two groups can just ignore each other. That's fine. The violence came from the fact that the offensively violent ideology (the "Destroy all other ethnic groups" one, to be clear) attacked people my ideology sees as being in our in-group (approximately everyone who's not trying commit violence upon other people at random), justifying defensive violence in response.
If half the class thinks blue eyes are superior, and the other half think brown eyes are superior, but no one's attacking each other and no one's oppressing each other, then there's no conflict. It's still not going to useful to sit around and argue philosophy.
I'm less concerned with wasting time arguing philosophy -- which I tend to find a bit of a dead end anyway -- and more concerned with pre-emptive violence.
"Rick is threatening me." "Rick holds beliefs which might eventually threaten me." "Rick holds beliefs that might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." "My interpretation of the beliefs I think Rick holds might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." "I heard something about Rick's group memberships and my interpretation of the beliefs I think those groups hold might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." And on.
And then you bring in tabula rasa, which itself contradicts "born that way." But sure, let's just ignore that paradox. Can we think of other born characteristics we might not find appealing? Quite a lot of personality disorders appear to arise from genetics, and yet you might find someone with Borderline Personality Disorder less than optimal company. Must you tolerate that?
Consistency, if anything, is a poor metric when it comes to anything as complex as people. "Destroy anyone not of my ethnic group" is consistent and simple. Do not fall in love with either.
If anything, the concept of tolerance itself is a trap, creating dividing lines everywhere. Worse yet, it allows someone to feel "just." This is perhaps one of the more dangerous emotions one can experience and consider as moral. A person who thinks of themselves as just is "justfied." Examine the words associated with "justified," even the television show. Consider the history of those who thought of themselves as justified. I feel just, I may then relent on my self-examination. It's a way to sidestep the endless labor of wondering, "Am I doing something right?" Observing, thinking, considering: these are all weights that humans quite naturally want to put down.
How easy, how self-satisfying it is to say "Punch that Nazi!" And of course you first must judge that person to be a Nazi, but even before that you're twiddling your definitions, making them expansive enough to pin that label on someone, all for the simple joy of feeling like it is okay to hit someone, that they are evil and deserving. The ecstasy of self-righteousness ought to be Schedule I.
Give me uncertainty and doubt. Dispel that self-assurance. Going around deciding whom to tolerate invites judgment, as if one were all-knowing and infallible. We are not.