TOLERANCE IS A ONE-WAY STREET...

      A friend of mine posted a link to this anecdote on Tumblr. The rough story is the allegedly homophobic dad who fears his son may be gay based on his desires to buy an "unmanly" videogame and play said videogame with a purple controller. The father would rather his son play a more "manly" shooter game with a regularly colored controller, threatening to hit him if he kept insisting over his father's objections. The older brother to this boy who was buying the game for his younger brother as a gift stood up to his father telling him that he was buying this game and controller as a gift for his brother because it's what he wants and if he (the father) was going to hit anyone, then it should be him (the older brother). At this point, the father leaves in disgust and the boy is assured by a girl that she likes the blue controller and shooter games (that is, atypically of other girls) and that "[t]here’s nothing wrong with what you like. Even if it’s different that what people think you should."

      Now, this is what I'm left thinking (aside from the desire to call bullshit on this story...it feels too perfectly crafted...like propaganda), why is tolerance always a one-way street? I really get the feeling that calls for tolerance are more like softened bullying tactics rather than genuine appeals to humanity.

      For those of you who must know, my personal opinion of this is that I do not support the father of this story...but I also don't support the girl in this story either. She's just as douchey to me. And the thing is you can't really give me the line about how the father's intolerance is worse because of the threat of violence or because it makes his son feel bad. The father's behavior only seems worse, I think, because its destructiveness is more immediately apparent. The girl's behavior only seems better, I think, because its destructiveness is more abstract.

      Instead, I try to look at this anecdote by its generalities. The mind becomes clouded and biased when presented with such specifics. The anecdote seems to boil down to conformity versus nonconformity and schooling behavior versus individualism and like any advice, each side can be both positive and negative depending on context.

      The father superficially seems to represent the conformist/schooling angle, urging his son to be a part of the group. Evolution readily enforces these behaviors and they are entirely appropriate in stable environments. Outward expressions of nonconformity are bad in fairly uniform areas. It can make you a target. After all, the tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the mower: it's the price of standing out. Individualistic self-expression is a risky choice if you are not prepared or able to defend your choices. I think of nature videos. The hawk goes after a flock but can't attack the flock directly without getting pummeled by collisions with the other birds. However, harassing the flock long enough eventually causes one of the birds to make a mistake and get separated. The separated one can now easily be targeted and killed. One could argue in support of the father (despite his alleged methods) that he is warning his son that this decision will result in him being separated from the flock leaving him exposed to bullies or ostracism. You could argue he is being protective and not necessarily homophobic. Maybe the father has misjudged his son, but he might also know that his son is not strong enough (emotionally and/or mentally and/or physically) to defend himself for making the choice, intentional or not, to leave the protection of the flock with his nonconformist behavior.

      The older brother defending his younger brother and the girl offering support seem superficially in the right and certainly would be in unstable environments where adaptation to change is rewarded rather than punished. Their rectitude, however, is dependent on their local environment. This is the unknown from this anecdote. Will this boy be the trendsetter (or another participant in an already-changing trend)? Is he a reflection of changing times and the passage of the "old way" into history? Is it necessarily a good thing to present this boy with the idea that the world is wrong and he is right? I think it's a good thing to try new ideas in light of the failure of the old. But trying new things when the old way is still working just fine or when there is only a hint that it is ultimately unsustainable opens oneself up to ridicule and being ignored because the issue isn't pressing. Think of our use of fossil fuels for instance. No matter how logically one may argue that changing slowly now would be cheaper in the long run, it comes across more as inconvenience because it's not a pressing issue. This idea that exists in our minds that does not let us change until we have to. As smart as we are, we don't have the influence over the older parts of our brain to overcome this.

      I'm not less guilty of this. I'm tolerant of variation within a society during stable times, but in times of chaos, expect us to conform and act as a whole against that threat. I want a balance of our competitive and cooperative natures. I want us to learn about both so that either way of doing things is comfortable as the times demand. Let's be supportive and play uncompetitively just for fun, but I also want to know that when the shit hits the fan, that we're capable of playing to win. Superficial variation is a luxury afforded to times of peace.

      So the message the writer of that anecdote concludes with, "They check out and leave, and all I can think is how awesome big brother is, how sweet little brother is, and how Dad ought to be ashamed for trying to make his son any other way." is wrong in my opinion. It's sweet, I don't deny that but I don't think that's the message we should be taking from this story. There's a missing element to what was going on in it: context. If the boy will suffer no consequences for his self-expression, if he is merely one more drop of water in a flood of change, then the father should indeed feel ashamed; but if the boy will face consequences, if he is indeed the tallest blade of grass, the older brother/girl should feel ashamed for effectively feeding him to the lions, the girl especially since she is least likely to be there to protect him from the negative results of her encouragement (whereas his brother may be able to defend him...at least for a time).

      I know this story is being used as a parable against shaming homosexuality, but I think it far more important to remind those who intend to buck the trend (or who are acting in a way which will buck the trend) that the road will not be easy for them. They may get lucky and have it easy, but if they are on the forefront of a seachange, then expect to suffer though your sacrifice may make the road easier for those who will follow. Pretending that it will be otherwise when encouraging another is a shitty thing to do to someone who wants to be different.