Intolerance in a “Tolerant” World


Recommended Posts

I once heard someone say, "People are okay with you having your own opinion — as long as it's theirs." That really struck a chord with me at the time, and it repeatedly echoed in my mind during the recent election season as I saw words of hatred, malice, and anger coming from both sides of the political spectrum. Funny enough, it would appear that in a time when tolerance is celebrated and lauded seemingly more than ever, people are becoming less and less tolerant. Here's the thing: tolerance doesn't mean just tolerating someone that has your same opinion. Because that's easy. Anyone can do that. Tolerance means being respectful and kind to people that have opinions that you don't agree with. By its very definition, tolerance doesn't apply to people with whom you already share an opinion — it applies to people with whom your beliefs don't coincide, which is why you even have the need to tolerate their opinions in the first place. Tolerance doesn't mean to condone or approve; it...

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems so simple and obvious, yet it seems so hard for us to do sometimes.

Does "having tolerance for" something or someone mean the same thing as "tolerating" that thing or that person? I know it seems a silly question, but just saying it in that slightly different way, to me, seems to give it a very slight change in connotation.  It also seems to have a different connotation when one speaks of having tolerance for a person, versus having tolerance for an idea.

Would it be right to say we should have tolerance for people we don't agree with, but perhaps it's ok to not have tolerance for their ideas?

I agree we should always (or almost always? keep reading) have compassion and kindness toward others... but here's another interesting question-- is it possible to be kind and compassionate while expressing "righteous anger" at the same time?

I think of "tolerance" as meaning more than just being compassionate and kind -- to me, it seems to also imply that we "allow" whatever it is we tolerate, to exist, without any confrontation... or maybe just without a lot of confrontation.

I'm actually not a confrontational person-- I like to avoid contention, at almost any cost.  But perhaps it actually is not always right to avoid it at ALL costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on whether ideas that one disagrees with or not lead to action. It also depends on what it means to "tolerate". I can "tolerate" (by one meaning of the word) someone believing that anarchy is the best government idea. I don't think I can or should tolerate it if such ideas lead to actual anarchy. And it must be considered, also, that ideas may always lead to actions, ultimately, if left unchecked.

Secondly, in this everybody's-a-victim world we live in, any effort to sway another is often interpreted as intolerance. That may or may not be true, but if it is, then I dare say I stand firmly on the side of intolerance for any principles that are not right and true and for the people who hold them. That is to say, if my preaching, teaching, exhorting, counseling, and other such efforts to sway others away from what I consider destructive ideas is intolerant of me, then I own it. Of course the world calls that intolerance (particularly when it comes to morality), but I'm not sure that's valid as to its meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an old saying that conservatives have tended to believe that liberals are foolish, whereas liberals believe conservatives to be evil.  We see this in play with the same-sex marriage issue.  In the 1970-2010 era we were asked to tolerate those who engaged in these relationships.  Yes, most religions declared them immoral.  Yes, even many irreligious people found the idea of those relationships to be twisted.  "Just stay out of our bedrooms...we don't want your marriage or your approval."  Being freedom-lovers, we more or less agreed.  The relationships were decriminalized, and establishments that catered to them become more accepted. Eventually, sidebars started appearing in movies and on TV.  Ultimately, SCOTUS declared the relationships Constitutionally protected. Afterwards, liberal guns were turned on conservatives, and those who opposed same-sex marriage were driven out of jobs, bankrupted out of their bakeries and flower shops, and the latest is that even those who are silent, but who dare to attend a house of worship that still opposes it, will be targeted. When LGBT activists are asked, "What happened to tolerance--for religious diversity?" The response is that they have no obligation to tolerate bigotry, hate, etc. 

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, prisonchaplain said:

There is an old saying that conservatives have tended to believe that liberals are foolish, whereas liberals believe conservatives to be evil.  

That old saying is 100% true bro. That's why your liberal friends can't tolerate dissenting views as well as conservatives can. Yes, it's a generality-but it's still generally true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

In the real world you do have to practice tolerance though. On the internet there is the block/ignore function (and thank God for it!) but reality doesn't have that and you simply have to learn how to get along with people you don't agree with or like. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share