Acceptance (was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD)

[delwynmarch]

I'm not picking on you Dana, so please don't take 
this post personally. It's just that it's a good 
example of the type of thinking that drives me 
nuts ;-) Just take it as a rhetoric exercise or 
something :-P


Dana wrote:
> Slytherin house excluded all whose blood wasn't 
> pure enough to be included into their idealistic 
> club of blood supremacy.

Del replies:
And Gryffindor house excluded all those who weren't 
brave enough. And Ravenclaw house excluded all 
those who weren't smart enough. But *they* weren't 
"punished" for being intolerant, were they?

It's NEVER the prejudice itself that matters: it's 
WHICH prejudice you hold.

> if exclusion is what it takes to unite people, 
> the unity in itself is just an illusion because 
> what unites them has no reflection on RL at all. 

Exclusion IS indeed what it takes to unite people. 
Don't believe me? Prove me wrong, give me a 
counter-example.

> Are you going to change your values because those 
> people are not willing to accept you because you 
> associate yourself with gay people? Or people of 
> color or specific religious backgrounds or social 
> status or disagreeable life-styles? If you would, 
> then you are actually denying yourself the right 
> to be whomever you want to be and to think 
> whatever you want to think. 

What about the right to be wrong in your eyes? What 
about the right to choose which compromises we'd 
rather live with? What about the right to choose 
which communities we'd rather receive approval from?

> Acceptance based on a false premise is not 
> acceptance and if you have to change your own 
> outline to be accepted for who you are then you 
> are untrue to yourself.

So I'm sure you'll agree that she shouldn't change 
her mind just because you think she should ;-) ?

> That is what many people have been fighting 
> against their entire life, to have the right to 
> be and not be dictate who they are supposed to be 
> in accordance to the views of others. 

Yep, some people fight for that, but not everybody 
has to think that way, right?

> If I were gay and you were my friend then this 
> would be reason enough for me to discontinue my 
> friendship with you,

And this would show acceptance... how exactly??? Are 
you saying that your friends have to conform to some 
code of behaviour in order for you to accept them as
your friends? If so, how does this jive with the 
concept of "acceptance"?

(I know that *I* have such a code of behaviour that I 
expect my friends to hold to, but then I don't 
pretend to be very accepting ;-) I'm a "take it or 
leave it" sort of person.)

> what would happen if the world was taken over by 
> people similar to Hitler, who actively tried to 
> exterminate people not accepted within his own 
> limited world view of a perfect race? Would you 
> be willing to fight against such views if they are 
> at that time the predominant sentiments of the 
> people living around you? Or would you suggest to 
> your friend to hide his or hers identity (or an 
> essential part of it) so they can blend into 
> society unseen? But what if those sentiments 
> include something that you can't hide because it 
> is part of your physical description? 

I'm curious: do you think that there are "good" 
answers and "bad" answers to those questions? If you
do, then how do you reconcile this with acceptance? 
How do you reconcile this with the supposed right to 
live as one wants to live?

> Omission of that what might upset a person's 
> viewpoint is not acceptance. 

So I take it that you would not have any problem with
someone saying something like "I personally think 
that homosexuality is an abomination, that Black 
people are inferior, and that Jews are thieves and 
immoral"? (Which is NOT my opinion, in case anyone 
wonders!)

> Prejudice can't be eradicated by removing those 
> elements that cause the prejudice in the first 
> place, 

Does that mean you think people should be allowed to 
say whatever they want, and that political correctness 
should be done away with?

> If people can no longer accept the Harry Potter 
> books now that JKR has revealed DD's sexual 
> orientation then it is their loss and people who 
> are willing to accept humanity in all its facets 
> are better off without their input to begin with.

I see an inherent contradiction here: "people who 
are willing to accept humanity in all its facets" 
necessarily includes people who are willing to accept 
those other people who "can no longer accept the 
Harry Potter books now that JKR has revealed DD's 
sexual orientation", so how could such people (the 
accepting ones) be "better off" without the second 
group??


> Anyway don't embrace prejudice as a means to 
> create the illusion of unity because it is based 
> on a false premise that people can only unite by 
> means of omission of the things they find 
> unacceptable. 

First I don't see this as a "false premise". Quite 
the contrary: I see it as the only working premise.
We are us because they are them. Without "them", 
there is no "us".

Second, how do you reconcile acceptance with the 
fact that you just counseled someone to change their
opinion ;-) ? 

> People can only unite if they learn to accept 
> that humans are humans regardless of anything 
> else 

Don't you see the "us vs them" here? "We are 
humans" means that "some of us are not animals, 
plants or microbes", no more no less.

> and value the lives and idea of others in the 
> same way they like their own lives and ideas to 
> be accepted. If you value the life of another in 
> equal terms you value your own then you would 
> never do unto others what you do not want others 
> to do upon you. 

Those are beautiful ideals that I pretty much 
happen to agree with, but I don't see why anyone 
else should agree with them?

And once again, acceptance would require that we 
accept people *as they are*, even (or should I say 
*especially*) if they don't reciprocate the favour!

I sincerely hope I didn't offend anyone, because 
that really wasn't my intention. I just like 
to present the other side of things.

Del