The most recent episode of The Carmichael Show Sunday night revolved around the concept of civilized discussion and why it's healthy to consistently hear differing viewpoints. It also subtlely poked fun at the notion that liberals are open-minded yet often times have trouble accepting viewpoints different from their own. In the end, though, it provided hope that, regardless of a family's differing viewpoints, we can all come together to celebrate that which bands us. In light of seeing this show, I thought I'd share a few thoughts on the matter.
Through research, observation, and conversation, I've come to the conclusion that, often times, liberals and conservatives have differing viewpoints on the concept of open-mindedness. To most self-described liberals, being open-minded means to accept people for who they are, regardless of age, gender, race, creed, orientation, etc. It also means to accept new ideas until one idea becomes fact. To most self-described conservatives, however, being open-minded means to accept prejudices against people based on age, gender, race, creed, and orientation, and to always accept new ideas, even when those ideas run contrary to facts. In other words, to a liberal, it's open-minded to accept and love the LGBT community, yet to a conservative, it's open-minded to accept that they don't accept and love the LGBT community. So to not tolerate intolerance evidently makes one intolerant.
This is an apples-and-oranges debate as far as I'm concerned. Evolution is a fact. Global warming is a fact. The Sandy Hook shooting is a fact. While others are free to have differing opinions on these matters, these opinions don't overturn facts. Is it narrow-minded for a liberal to not take a conservative seriously when he/she says that the capital city of Iowa is Amsterdam? The capital of Iowa is Des Moines, and while a person can believe otherwise, that doesn't make it true and doesn't mean the viewpoint should be taken seriously. On the flip-side, conservatives seem to forget the difference between personal freedom and professional freedom. Away from the workplace, they're allowed to believe and say whatever they so choose. While I may not agree with them on an issue, they're protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution in such settings. At work, however, it's a different story, and they shouldn't be legally allowed to refuse service to a group of people due to their prejudices. In both cases, what's more narrow-minded - someone judging another based on something they can't control or someone judging that person for their hatred of another based on something they can't control? According to these conservatives, Rosa Parks was just as narrow-minded as the Ku Klux Klan because she didn't accept their beliefs while she fought for equality. Like I said, it's an apple-and-oranges debate, or perhaps a Parks-and-KKK debate would be more fitting...
Through research, observation, and conversation, I've come to the conclusion that, often times, liberals and conservatives have differing viewpoints on the concept of open-mindedness. To most self-described liberals, being open-minded means to accept people for who they are, regardless of age, gender, race, creed, orientation, etc. It also means to accept new ideas until one idea becomes fact. To most self-described conservatives, however, being open-minded means to accept prejudices against people based on age, gender, race, creed, and orientation, and to always accept new ideas, even when those ideas run contrary to facts. In other words, to a liberal, it's open-minded to accept and love the LGBT community, yet to a conservative, it's open-minded to accept that they don't accept and love the LGBT community. So to not tolerate intolerance evidently makes one intolerant.
This is an apples-and-oranges debate as far as I'm concerned. Evolution is a fact. Global warming is a fact. The Sandy Hook shooting is a fact. While others are free to have differing opinions on these matters, these opinions don't overturn facts. Is it narrow-minded for a liberal to not take a conservative seriously when he/she says that the capital city of Iowa is Amsterdam? The capital of Iowa is Des Moines, and while a person can believe otherwise, that doesn't make it true and doesn't mean the viewpoint should be taken seriously. On the flip-side, conservatives seem to forget the difference between personal freedom and professional freedom. Away from the workplace, they're allowed to believe and say whatever they so choose. While I may not agree with them on an issue, they're protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution in such settings. At work, however, it's a different story, and they shouldn't be legally allowed to refuse service to a group of people due to their prejudices. In both cases, what's more narrow-minded - someone judging another based on something they can't control or someone judging that person for their hatred of another based on something they can't control? According to these conservatives, Rosa Parks was just as narrow-minded as the Ku Klux Klan because she didn't accept their beliefs while she fought for equality. Like I said, it's an apple-and-oranges debate, or perhaps a Parks-and-KKK debate would be more fitting...
Comments
Post a Comment