At last, a generation of schoolchildren will grow up knowing it’s OK to be LGBT

Did you actually bother reading Simon’s post just a few entries above?

In any case, your arguments are fallacious and don’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Unless you’re genuinely suggesting that, say, World War 2 should never have happened because we should’ve accepted and respected Germany’s view that they were right to invade Poland, for example?

The interesting thing about topics like this is that they preach about acceptance and tolerance of others. Now watch how tolerant people will be towards anyone who invades other countries. Waving the populist flag is always easy. True tolerance is hard; it’s about respecting that some people hold values which don’t align with your own.

Your argument transposed directly states that the British should not have gone to war. They should’ve applied true tolerance and respected Germany’s values.

1 Like

Accepting Germany’s view that they were right to invade Poland is essential. You have to accept that that was their view in 1939. It’s a matter of historical fact. You don’t have to agree with that viewpoint; in fact the British went to war over their disagreement with that viewpoint.

Nobody on this thread is arguing for genocide, so I think we can stop short of war. In a thread such as this, it could well be argued, I believe there is in fact a principle online, that if you cite nazis or WW2, you have de facto lost just by making that example in the first place.

This is a debate about wether or not school children should be taught about sexual orientations. I think we should either be able to handle the idea that other people have viewpoints which differ from our own, or perhaps we should just avoid discussions like this entirely.

All, shall we now end this thread and this discussion in line with Godwin’s war?


I enjoy the irony of discussions like this because they are discussions about tolerance in which people demonstrate a precise lack of tolerance for each others’ viewpoints. That’s quite interesting to observe. I don’t want to get in the trenches with the rest of you so you’ll observe me very carefully not taking a position on this issue either way.

So you LGBTQ+ is something that should be ‘tolerated’?


The first time I heard this and realised what was actually going on was at a summer gathering of friends. Some people were discussing how society had progressed and that we were now supposed to be “tolerant” of LGBT people. They were genuinely well meaning people who were basically saying “Yeah, we’ve got this wrong in the past and it’s OK/normal to be LGBT”, but the wording was all wrong because it framed OK/normal as tolerance.

I think we have to be understanding when someone is likely to be well meaning and uses the word “tolerated” to mean “OK/normal”, but perhaps try and help them realise that the language they are using could be interpreted as meaning it isn’t OK/normal but should be tolerated.

Like most things in life, it’s about balance and education.

1 Like

As per Dave’s post, here at Monzo we believe in being “intolerant of intolerance” aka the paradox of intolerance.

We’ve found that communities that attempt to allow for all opinions and up being dominated by the least tolerant members.

We love, respect and support all of our LGBTQA+ colleagues and customers, and in the face of the oppression they continue to face we support all efforts around education, for people of any age.

This is a hardline for us that isn’t up for debate.


To be clear, I don’t have a position. I simply dislike when people go on the internet, find a topic that could be vaguely controversial and then proceed to get annoyed at each other. I don’t see how that is productive or useful and I think it’s intolerant of other people’s viewpoints. I think even if you object to someone, you can do that in a calm and reasonable way. You can’t be opposed to me as Monzo or as an individual; in this discussion I haven’t taken a side and haven’t specifically commented on the viewpoint of anyone here. I do so hate pointless squabbling online. Also I’m surprised to see this discussion in the forum of an online bank… but there we go.

There’s no such thing, it’s as much of a myth as meritocracy and it’s intellectually dishonest to live a life on the fence while claiming to be enlightened because of it. You are always picking a side, the choice is whether you pick a side implicitly or explicitly. Sitting on the fence is an implicit choice to support the stronger side, because you’re choosing not to give your power (whether that’s a little or a lot) to the weaker side clear in the knowledge that they’re more likely to be overcome without your support.

You believe that to be tolerant is to turn a blind eye, you believe that to be tolerant is to say “that isn’t impacting me so I’m staying out of it” which is implicitly supporting the stronger side, because you have an opportunity to use your own power to support the weaker side and you choose not to.

People will always have a difference of opinion, and certainly you may wish to choose to support the stronger side in an argument, and that’s not inherently wrong, but it’s important to understand that by explicitly supporting neither side you are implicitly supporting the stronger side.

Imagine that you’re sitting on a literal fence that separates two groups of people, a weak side and a strong side: the strong side are trying to break down the fence to attack the weaker side, while the weaker side try to repair the fence to protect themselves because they do not wish to fight: are you noble and superior if you remain sitting on the fence, watching as the stronger side inevitably break down the fence and attack the weaker side?

Person A wears a red hat. Person A has been bullied all their life because of their red hat. They have started a campaign to stop bullying against people with red hats. They have lobbied the government and the government will now introduce laws against bullying people with red hats. The consequence is that Person A is no longer bullied.

Person B bullies person A for wearing a red hat. Person B hates people with red hats. Person B spends a lot of time tormenting those with red hats, bullying them. After bullying people with red hats is banned, Person B can no longer bully Person A and he is frustrated because he hates people with red hats.

Person A wishes to live a life without bullying that would allow him to live in peace, Person B wishes to live a life where he can torment others. They are not different flavours of the same icecream, or tracks on an album, they’re fundamentally different: yes, they are views held by humans but one is a desire to hurt others for his own pleasure and the other is a desire to live without hurt. You can pretend that we live in some sort of vacuum where consequences aren’t relevant because perhaps you’re privileged enough that you don’t have to experience hurtful consequences of others “viewpoints” but for those that do experience those consequences (or people with empathy for those that do) it’s not possible to ignore reality.

Essentially, the conclusion of all of this is… take a position, have a spine. If you believe something, stand up for it, if you don’t believe in something, reject it, but don’t identify as enlightened because you’ve conned yourself into believing you can opt out of basic social behaviour – you can’t! Support isn’t an abstract concept, it’s a real consequential action that you are engaging in whether you choose to or not. You either support something or you don’t, whether that support is implicit or explicit is up to you.


And with that, I think it’s time to close this thread.