Becoming or Being?

I'm no fan of beauty pageants and take a dim view of anyone associated with their production (as a contestant, judge or in any other role). So, when it comes to issues as important as marriage and civil equality for all families, the last people I want to hear from are the likes of Ms. Prejean or Mr. Hilton, no matter what side they might claim to represent. Whether it's his condemnation of discrimination or her defense of religious principle, both are tainted by association with the degrading spectacle that is The Miss USA Pageant.

So far, it's only been anti-gay NOM who've spent donor money drawing further attention to the debased "debate" between these two purveyors of trash culture. Until/unless "our side" stoops to that, I don't see how "progressives" have anything to answer for here.

There's a tripping point at which our most deeply held beliefs and commitments become inflexible dogma. When individual action becomes group initiative, this development intensifies. As much as collective action increases chances of achieving goals, it also cocoons adherents in a hard "us vs. them" shell that both protects and stifles. We become victims of groupthink, we become zealots. We become intolerant.

Maybe, it would be healthier to admit intolerance is natural. It's in us. It isn't unique to particular political worldview, it's common to all, because whether we like it or not, intolerance is an indelible part of the human condition, a throwback to the days when the "other" approaching the tribal campfire may bring friendship - or clubs. Our impulses are like the need to eat, recognized and controlled; overindulgence can be fatal.

No atrocity ever was committed by anyone mindful he was criminal doing so. Blood-soaked horror is always the work of well-meaning people absolutely convinced they are acting correctly, even righteously. That's what makes so deadly the intolerance that sprouts from any dogma.

This is a great post, and you've made some excellent - and courageous - points here.

If you've read some of the comments at "progessive" websites like HuffPost regarding Ms. Prejean, intolerance runs wild.

She was not a "public figure" before, not an "elected" figure or politician, yet otherwise "smart" people are saying the most intolerant things.

You might find Earl Ofari Hutchinson's take at HuffPo interesting, if you haven't read it already.

While don't agree with her philosophy, it is after all her philosophy. She was asked an inappropriate question in an unfortunate venue. A damned if you, damned if you don't question. I'm saddened that she's taken refuge with NOM, but given the barrage of hate she's been bombarded with, I understand.

First, I think the intolerance of somebody like Perez Hilton doesn't reflect in any way on "progressives" as a group because he isn't. He's just angry that she doesn't agree with him and he takes it very personally because of his sexual orientation. This is understandable to a certain point, but his behavior since that time has been far worse than hers and very ugly. I think his reaction to her was adolescent, immature and very personal in nature. The same is true for people who have responded to the beauty queen similarly and it's the personal nature of the criticism that, in my opinion, casts it all in such an ugly light.

I found the reaction to her public remarks at the pagaent excessive to say the least. After all, who really cares what this young lady thinks? What she said that night, was not really offensive and didn't come off as being intended in that way. She has a right to her opinion. She stated it in a way that appeared to be in opposition to gay marriage on a personal basis but not opposed necessarily to the opportunity for same sex couples to marry. I think it's an ignorant, foolish opinion, but she has a right to it. Not really that big a deal.

Having said that, her subsequent actions have merited strong opposition and criticism precisely because what she has said is blatantly small-minded, bigoted and intolerant. Of course, people should take into account that she's a beauty queen and not necessarily very intelligent, but even taking that into consideration, her subsequent actions and statements have been very bigoted and that's deplorable.

With all that in mind, I think that the progressive blowback to her in general has not been something that puts progressives best foot forward. On the other hand, it presents an opportunity to see clearly the way progressives express themselves when they feel safe to show their true feelings and when they are genuinely angry. It might be an opportunity for some reflection and reform, but I doubt that will happen. I think what we've seen is an essential part of the character of some progressives and is unlikely to change.

Progressives broadly speaking can frequently be found harshly criticizing those they believe are their intellectual or social inferiors. I think the beauty queen probably scores in both those categories. That the beauty queen is so physically attractive, in my opinion, fuels the zeal of some in attacking her. That's unfair, but it's a reality. It is because of this tendency of progressives that, over time, conservatives have been able to effectively exploit to paint all progressives/liberals as "effete snobs" and "pointy headed liberals" and as people who think they are better than the great unwashed. I think all of this comes out in situations where people like the empty-headed beauty queen puts her foot in her mouth and progressives react to that.

Eloquent ruminations on topic written in the ashes of WWII when hatred of Germans was still strong:

E.M. Forster On Tolerance:
http://duermueller.tripod.com/forster.html

That's only an excerpt. The whole text used to be available on line but the one I knew of was taken down long ago and I can't find another. More's the pity.

Fortuntely this line is included in that excerpt, the one that's the real hard truth in my opinion: I have lost all faith in positive militant ideals; they can so seldom be carried out without thousands of human beings getting maimed or imprisoned. Years ago, when I found the essay, it explained my own revulsion at militant language used by so-called liberals on the net. Given that your tagline is A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict, I thought you might appreciate it as well.

Ah, but the hard part for "moderates" who have seen the Enlightenment/light is tolerating militant speech, of course. But without finding a way to do that, we subvert the very civilization we attempt. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is quite a work of genius.

P.S. I believe Perez Hilton apologized/backtracked later, saying he lost control.

This might be a moot point but I didn't know Perez Hilton was a progressive? His sexual orientation does not make him one. There are gay and lesbian folks far from being progressive.

Exhibit A: OutRage

I thought the original question was incredibly stupid, given this was a beauty pageant. I thought Carrie Prejean's answer was as good as she could give off the top of her head. I thought Perez Hilton (whoever the hell HE is) baited her and then exaggerated his outrage in order to get his 15 minutes.

I think he handed her over to the Right Wingers wrapped in ribbons--the gift that keeps on giving.

I'm a liberal, not a progressive (I don't know what a progressive is), but I know a chance for a screed against liberals/progressives when I see one.

And this is it.

You start out by making a valid point, Wattree: that Perez Hilton is an intolerant asshole.
Then you step in it by trying to generalize from that to an observation about "progressives" and their flawed attitudes.
Here are a few rules of thumb to exercise in your quest for tolerance:
1. Don't stereotype.
2. Don't label.
3. Don't use loaded language like "Due to our leftist indoctrination ..."
4. Don't draw conclusions about the world from the comment sections of blogs.

I thought Hilton's actions were atrocious but I also thought her answer was extremely undiplomatic in light of the fact that she was basically a candidate running to represent the USA. That would be all of the USA and she did alienate a large group of people with that answer. I remember reading she said something like "that's how I was raised" to justify her feelings. She was raised to be intolerant? A previous Miss USA wrote on her blog that she also felt it was the wrong answer for that setting but after receiving death threats, had to take the post down. I'm not ashamed as a progressive to be intolerant of people who are actually, intolerant.