This is going out on a limb – and risking a nice little flame war – but let’s see what happens.
I read the following graf in an SF Chron article on this weekend’s anti-abortion march right here in San Francisco:
“We couldn’t believe that they had the nerve to come to San Francisco,” said Dian Harrison, president of the Golden Gate chapter of Planned Parenthood. “They’ve been so emboldened that they believe that their message would be tolerated here. Sure, they can come here, but San Francisco will be ready to show them that they don’t believe in their message.”[emphasis added]
It caught my eye because of a recent discussion on this site about the relative tolerance or intolerance of what many would say is America’s most tolerant city.
It’s true that some things shouldn’t be tolerated – murder, child abuse, ugg boots – but for these kinds of political debates, when is intolerance okay? Disagreement rocks – I’m all for dissent, of course – so the call to demonstrate a disbelief in a message is fine. But the word “tolerated” practically lept from the page.
I’d hope that in thinking about this, you separate the underlying questions about abortion with the rhetorical, city identity questions that I’m really after. It’s doubtful we’ll come to a final conclusion about those – but I really don’t think we’ll solve the abortion debate – so why get bogged down here? That said – it’s your metblog – so say what you will. I’ll tolerate it.