January 28, 2009

  • Tolerance...

    So, TrunthePaige wrote a post last night about the Duggar family. http://www.xanga.com/trunthepaige/690709100/i-want-to-know-about-tolerance/ I am guessing that what happened was that she heard major criticisms from anti-homeschooling/religion people, who claim to be tolerant of everyone. This post is not attacking Paige's post - I understand the point she was making and it was a good one. Basically, if you're going to claim to be tolerant, then don't just be tolerant of the things you approve of.

    However, the post got me thinking about tolerance in general. As I wrote on her post, I am not a fan of tolerance. The meaning of tolerance, at least with the people I know who claim to be tolerant, has been twisted into a concept of 'you have to accept everything and everyone, you have to like everything and everyone, you can't judge or criticize anything or anyone.' Which is absolute bullshit. I am allowed to have my opinions and express them. And that's what gets me about the tolerance movement is the hypocrisy...what I've found is that if people were to hear their own words, they'd find themselves basically saying 'we'll be tolerant of the tolerant, but not tolerant of the intolerant.' Well, if you're truly tolerant, then wouldn't it make sense to be tolerant of those who are intolerant as well? Or should their  voices be shut up?

    I am not progressive. I am not tolerant. I am NONE of the nice convenient labels which are so easily tossed around in todays culture. I am me. If people have a problem with that, screw them. If I have an opinion about an issue or a person, I have no problem talking about it, or judging them, or criticizing them. That is the beauty of America - I have a right to criticize whoever I like for whatever reason I like, and they have the right to do it right back to me. As long as freedom of speech is still allowed (well, Freedom of Speech has taken several hits in the past 20 years), there is no need for blind acceptance and tolerance. Because through the expression of ideas, misconceptions and misjudgements are easily solved.

    I am just tired of people saying 'But...they're different! We need to accept them because they're different!' But what if I don't want to? Why should I blindly accept someone? MLK never spoke of blind tolerance. Jesus never spoke of blind tolerance. I think what MLK said was that we should accept people based upon the content of their character, not simply because they're black or white, but because of who they are on the inside.

    I think I have kind of gone on a tangent here. But anyway. The main point is this - tolerance is bullshit. I can allow something to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, or accept it. I can allow it to happen, in a live and let live kind of way. But I do NOT have to like it.

    So, world, let's make a deal - you do what you want, and as long as it's not harming anyone, I won't stop you. But, I reserve the right to criticize or judge you if I have a problem with you...and you have the right to criticize and judge me as much as you like. I'm ok with it. If you think I'm wrong in my criticism or judgement, I'm perfectly willing to discuss it with you, because the free and open exchange of ideas is the only way for different people to understand one another. If I, as a rational person, find reason to accept you, then I will. But I will never blindly accept anyone or anything under the guise of tolerance.

Comments (12)

  • I kind of think you've come back to what tolerance originally meant.

    "The main point is this - tolerance is bullshit. I can allow something to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, or accept it. I can allow it to happen, in a live and let live kind of way. But I do NOT have to like it."

    Pretty sure that's a fair handle on the true meaning of tolerance.   Tolerance has come to mean absolute acceptance, approval, and promotion of something.   None of those mean tolerance, or well, they'd be called tolerance instead of acceptance, approval, promotion.  

    I like the kind of tolerance you practice, because well, it's tolerance instead of something else.   

    Look I know what I've said is stupid, but hey there are a lot of stupid PC people, so I have to dumb stuff down.

    BP
     

  • I think you make a really good point.
    "Basically, if you're going to claim to be tolerant, then don't just be tolerant of the things you approve of."
    People who are supposedly tolerant do tend to be hypocritical.

  • What's caught my attention more is your reference to "blind tolerance."

    I don't want to say that I'm intolerable of other people. I'm as open-minded as anyone can claim to be. I do however--like yourself--criticize what I don't like. Now, just because I criticize doesn't mean I would hate/dislike that person for his/her actions. For example, the Duggar Family. I would perhaps criticize initially on their vast growing addition of children because it's just...mind-bogging! Seriously, why so many? But it's their choice. If I were to meet them in person, I wouldn't act differently than I do when I meet a stranger for the first time: always polite. In the end, I'll have to claim indifference in the sense that their continuing procreation of children holds no interest for me personally.

    I wonder what would Jesus say concerning "blind tolerence'?

  • @Girl_Without_Pity - I agree. I guess it's more like what Such_Were_You was saying - I try to practice tolerance in the TRUE definition of the word, but not blind tolerance.

    Jesus was a badass. He wasn't afraid to speak his mind when he needed to. :D I don't think he was in favor of blind tolerance...he told people exactly what they were doing wrong and how to fix it whenever he needed to. But he still loved them. That's the important thing...still keeping that sense of love, at least of their value as human beings, while criticizing.

  • I think you and i are going to get along splendidly.  Haha!!!

    No, in all seriousness, i think the idea of "tolerance" has gotten as far out of control as feminism, and the fight against racism (which has turned some into racists, though they won't admit it) and so on.  Great post. 

  • @Papillon_Mom - Labels and Ism's suck for the most part.

    Thanks for the rec!

  • Just wanted to say that I agree with you on this - I think tolerance has morphed into something ugly. I mean, when you have to 'tolerate' someone, that's usually not having a positive attitude on your part. When your friend or loved one is doing something that could harm themselves or others, you express your disapproval and concern to them, even though it is ultimately their choice to make.

    Anyway, good post - thanks for writing it!

  • You are right. It is the content of the character that counts.

    When I think of tolerance, I literally think of the dictionary definition--being fair and objective. In the end, I may not agree with a person's choice, but I will treat them fairly, or try to anyway.

    Voltaire comes to mind: "I do not agree with a thing you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    I know he is talking about words, but I think that in general about people and the way they live provided their way of life does not harm or victimize anyone.

    I understand the frustration with the hypocrisy, and I most certainly don't think that being tolerant means I can't disagree. It just means I still treat them like they are human. The author of Blue Like Jazz talks about loving people just because they are. I guess that is what I try to do. I think we should all try to do that.

    I also think I am getting preachy...ack!! I will back off, now.

    Great post!

  • Amen!

  • Tolerance is bullshit designed to stiffle opposition to an issue.

  • I agree that if you're too tolerant, it's not a good thing.  But when you said, "So, world, let's make a deal - you do what you want, and as long as it's not harming anyone, I won't stop you," that concerns me a little.  There are a lot of nosy people out there who think that certain things hurt them... when they actually don't.  Example: gay marriage.  I live in Canada and I'm straight.  The ability of my gay neighbours to get married has not harmed me at all.  But the way some people go on about it, you'd think the right to get married means that gay people are allowed to break into your house and force you (at gunpoint) to watch (and participate in) their sex acts.

    Won't somebody think of the children? 

  • Pretty effective data, thank you for this post. LINK 6 web. This will not have effect as a matter of fact, that's what I suppose. 7 web check. thanks for post here 3 4. Here, I don't actually consider it is likely to have effect.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment