verb - allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. synonyms: allow, permit, condone, accept, swallow, countenance;
noun - the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
The key to understanding tolerance is that by sheer definition it is what you do in regards to something that you are innately opposed to; however, lots of people who demand tolerance of others, are often unwilling to extend tolerance to those who disagree, which in general goes against the very definition. You cannot be tolerant of people who agree with you, only those who disagree. Therefore to label someone tolerant who attacks those who disagree is a misnomer.
For example, while a person may be pro gay marriage and therefore think that they are tolerant because they are straight, it is a concept that they are actually advocating. Therefore it is not tolerance, for them to advocate for gay marriage. Tolerance would be for those of the opposing viewpoint, which is not often seen as proved by the canceling of Duck Dynasty for expressing what is presently an unpopular opinion. This is not a display of tolerance. This is not advocating a system of peaceful coexistence, which I do not think is the same thing as "tolerance".
Personally I am not a fan of universal tolerance, because there are some things that should not be tolerated. Abuse, bullying, and ignoring the rights of others are all intolerable acts and I don't care what banner you are flying at the time. Bullying people who believe different than you is intolerable. Pressing your beliefs onto other people is intolerable. It is just as bad for people to attack conservatives as it is to attack people who are liberal. It is extremely hypocritical to demand tolerance and not be willing to afford it to your opposing viewpoint.
I'm Libertarian so I ruffle feathers on both sides of the fence; however, while debating with conservatives, I tend to get far less personal attacks than with liberals, who have had a habit of passionately demonizing opposing views. And these were people who advocated "tolerance". What they are really doing is standing in judgement and making the social rules for everyone else by picking and choosing what should and should not be tolerated. Their personal bias becomes the status by which all others must adapt. It sets them up for a mindset of aggressive moral superiority, not peaceful coexistence. This isn't good either, when some feel perfectly justified to bully others because they are Christian or conservative by labeling them intolerant by assumption. That's not tolerant. And it's hypocritical to demand that their opposition respect them without giving the same respect.
I don't claim tolerance, because that would presume that there is something to be tolerated, when as a matter of fact, unless that behavior is directly impacting myself then it's not a matter of tolerance. It's a matter of "not my business". You can only tolerate that which affects you, and the sheer word also lends more validity to one side than the other, a sense of superiority and rightness to tolerate the wrong. The difference are the people who attack others for thinking differently, and those who realize that how another person thinks does not affect them.
That comes with abstract reasoning, being able to separate yourself from others. When you make choices for your own life, and realize that you don't have the right to make choices for other people's lives unless they affect yours, what they do is of little consequence. If it doesn't affect you, then you don't need control over it. That's freedom of choice, and allowing other people freedom of choice ... which is more than tolerance. It's better than tolerance, because it doesn't come with a judgement. It doesn't come with an aggressive undertone. It's not making a character judgement of right or wrong, it's simply respecting others enough to let them make their own life decisions without someone else having to "tolerate" it.
I'm Libertarian so I ruffle feathers on both sides of the fence; however, while debating with conservatives, I tend to get far less personal attacks than with liberals, who have had a habit of passionately demonizing opposing views. And these were people who advocated "tolerance". What they are really doing is standing in judgement and making the social rules for everyone else by picking and choosing what should and should not be tolerated. Their personal bias becomes the status by which all others must adapt. It sets them up for a mindset of aggressive moral superiority, not peaceful coexistence. This isn't good either, when some feel perfectly justified to bully others because they are Christian or conservative by labeling them intolerant by assumption. That's not tolerant. And it's hypocritical to demand that their opposition respect them without giving the same respect.
I don't claim tolerance, because that would presume that there is something to be tolerated, when as a matter of fact, unless that behavior is directly impacting myself then it's not a matter of tolerance. It's a matter of "not my business". You can only tolerate that which affects you, and the sheer word also lends more validity to one side than the other, a sense of superiority and rightness to tolerate the wrong. The difference are the people who attack others for thinking differently, and those who realize that how another person thinks does not affect them.
That comes with abstract reasoning, being able to separate yourself from others. When you make choices for your own life, and realize that you don't have the right to make choices for other people's lives unless they affect yours, what they do is of little consequence. If it doesn't affect you, then you don't need control over it. That's freedom of choice, and allowing other people freedom of choice ... which is more than tolerance. It's better than tolerance, because it doesn't come with a judgement. It doesn't come with an aggressive undertone. It's not making a character judgement of right or wrong, it's simply respecting others enough to let them make their own life decisions without someone else having to "tolerate" it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting on this blog. Your comment will have to be moderated. Content promoting outside content will be removed. Spam, personal attacks, stalker bait, etc will also be removed. All comments by real people referring to the blog itself in a civilized manner are welcome.
Have a good day!