Ok, to some this will seem like a silly question, and possibly it’s just a semantics problem, but nevertheless.
These political debates go round and round and inevitably people start preaching the virtues of “tolerance.” Need to win an argument? Just call the other side intolerant, that’s what it always boils down to.
Now, to me, prior to entering these political discussions, tolerance never seemed lke a virtue. I mean, really, the idea that you put up with something is some kind of grand ideal now? It’s always seemed to me that tolerance is basically neutral, some things should be tolerated while others shouldn’t. But apparantely some others disagree, and I’m interested in their take.
[quote]Issue 1 No 3 March-November
THE BIGOT
‘Any Answers’
Hitler
Surrey
Deep down, let’s face it, all of us hate foreigners. It’s quite natural when one lives in such a beautiful and perfect country as our own to hate and loathe those greasy-haired swivelling toadies from Europe and beyond. What worries me is that sometimes this hatred is so deep down that many of us forget about it, and instead of hitting Frenchmen and letting Dagos’ tyres down, we are buying garlic-smelling French cars and eating filthy chunks of Wop dough in stinking Pizza parlours. Now I’m not saying that we should go out and burn down the nearest Eye-tie, Chink, Froggie or (Pakki restaurant
“Tolerance” is the antiquated notion that our side may not be absolutely right and the other side absolutely wrong.
In the new world order, self-doubt is a weakness we can no longer afford.
All right-thinking people now understand that endless war is really the path to peace, so-called civil rights are actually slavery and ignorance is the shield of true strength.
Write these truths down and tape them to your mirror. Take them to heart. They may one day save your life.
[quote=“redandy”]These political debates go round and round and inevitably people start preaching the virtues of “tolerance.” Need to win an argument? Just call the other side intolerant, that’s what it always boils down to.
Now, to me, prior to entering these political discussions, tolerance never seemed lke a virtue. I mean, really, the idea that you put up with something is some kind of grand ideal now? It’s always seemed to me that tolerance is basically neutral, some things should be tolerated while others shouldn’t.[/quote]On intellectual and moral grounds: what spook said.
The “intolerance” call is often a cheap shot, a fallback on collective power. Boo to that. Somethings shouldn’t be tolerated. Boo to hiding from that.
On utilitarian and strategic grounds–and I’m not sure if this speaks to your question, or not–the idea that you put up with something is a grand idea now, if not a grand ideal. If J. S. Mill and Machiavelli were right, and a diverse, vibrant society if the most energetic and powerful, then the individual’s right to be offensive needs to be respected (within bounds, I think). If you’re surrounded by people whose actions (or being) mildly offend you, what are your choices? Fight 'em all, move, kick 'em out, or grin and bear it; only the last of these preserves the energies and powers that are the great payoff.
Well, it can be. It basically is the ability to get along with something you may not like in particular. But it is still withing your extent of tolerance, so you make do with it as good as you manage. Which already hints at that there are limits to it. Which then results in work … mostly defining how far your limits go and then putting up with something less than ideal for you but still within these limits.
And because all of this is involves self-reflection, work and having to deal with some unsure grey area of neither-entirely-great-however-not-totally-unacceptable-either there is also the cheap version of it all.
That one consists merely of propping up a straw man (i.e. “redandy is a freaking intolerant fascist … just look at his post!”) then by bashing that straw man long enough for being “intolerant” so that enough of that rubs off till I can claim I am “tolerant” merely based on how hard I bash an alleged ‘intolerant’. That’s much much easier than testing one’s own limits.
[quote=“redandy”]Ok, to some this will seem like a silly question, and possibly it’s just a semantics problem, but nevertheless.
These political debates go round and round and inevitably people start preaching the virtues of “tolerance.” Need to win an argument? Just call the other side intolerant, that’s what it always boils down to.
Now, to me, prior to entering these political discussions, tolerance never seemed lke a virtue. I mean, really, the idea that you put up with something is some kind of grand ideal now? It’s always seemed to me that tolerance is basically neutral, some things should be tolerated while others shouldn’t. But apparantely some others disagree, and I’m interested in their take.[/quote]
I think the idea of tolerance in modern Western thinking arose out of the the Wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th centuries.
After devastating much of Central Europe over transubstantation vs. consubstantation ( or, in Lilliput, Big-enders vs Small-enders) it seemed that tolerance wasn’t such a bad thing. Latter-day experience with totalitarianisms seems to confirm that.
Thomas Jefferson: “I care not whether my neighbor has one God or twenty; it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.”
To me, that seems more of a virtue than “Die, infidel dog” (or “right-wing running dog” or “left-wing-deviationist” or “non-Aryan degenerate” or…)
Ok, the responses have been fairly helpful. I guess mostly I just think tolerance isn’t the best way of describing things. But, rather than start a big boring semantics argument, I’ll step out and consider my request satisfied.
I honestly don’t understand why so many posters seem intolerant of the concept of tolerance, including the OP who asked:
I guess maybe one needs to be more specific about the facts. Tolerant of what? The OP talks about “putting up” with something, which suggests tolerance of someone else’s conduct that is interfering with your own life in some way. In that case, “putting up” with makes sense, as does spook’s good reply, that. . .
But it’s not even a matter of “putting up” with the other’s behavior if it doesn’t infringe on your own rights. If someone wants to wear a yarmulka, or a cross, or a muslim veil to school, or a Scottish guy wants to wear a kilt, and that behavior is different from the norm but doesn’t interfere with your own rights in any way, it’s not a matter of “putting up” with difference because they may be right and you may be wrong, it’s just that the world is made up of all kinds of different people with different beliefs and practices and so long as they don’t interfere with others it’s only logical that all should be allowed to choose their own separate paths. You take your path, I’ll take mine.
“The victory of the new Iraq will be the triumph of freedom over hate, of decency over intolerance.”
– Interim Iraqi Government President Jalal Talabani
I’ve already said that I think a lot of my less than wholehearted acceptance is semantics, but to dive into things a little more, I’d say I think tolerance is at best a temporary solution. Tolerance — at least as I’ve learned the word — implies a certain dislike of something, being “bothered” by it if you will – but being unable or unwilling to do anything about it. In such a situation, I think either someone learns not to be bothered by it – and thus no longer “tolerates” it, — or learns to embrace it, which also renders “tolerance” unessary. I think if neither happens, and someone continues to go on “tolerating” something, it just leads to bitterness, and very likely a worse reaction than if the issues had been worked out early on.
Most humans learn tolerance out of necessity from the time they are babies. If they don’t they must be very screwed up indeed. As a baby one learns to tolerate piss in the diapers, waiting for a bottle, a playmate who touches ones toy, one parents putting one to sleep. Later one learns to tolerate school, homework, piano lessons, rain that prevents outside play, bullies, stupid teachers, etc. And as one matures one learns to tolerate lousy bosses, lazy coworkers, drivers cutting one off in traffic, taxes, asshole neighbors, a government that one dislikes but was democratically elected (more or less) and one must wait till some day it will be gone, and all kinds of terrible things in the news that one can do little about. It’s a big world. Only a baby would expect things to always go the way one wants. There are lots of people out there with different backgrounds, perspectives, desires and rights and tolerance is just accepting that reality rather than fighting like a baby to always get what one wants.
I’m right with you here, MT. Especially the first and last sentences.
The problem with trying to have a meaningful discussion about “tolerance” as a general concept (rather than a discussion about “Should we tolerate specific Behaviour X”) is that you are really can’t get anywhere unless you know what it is that you are being asked to tolerate.
As MT pointed out, there are some things that are just other people’s business – and “tolerance” shouldn’t enter into it. If it doesn’t affect us, then we should keep our noses out of it.
On the other hand, the line drawing tends to be FAR from easy in a world where a many many actions can be said (sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly) to influence us indirectly. If some guy wants to beat his wife or kid, and the wife and kid say “Leave us alone, under our belief system he has the right to do this” then do we say:
------ “That affects all of us because we don’t want to live in a society that condones that behaviour.” or do we say…
------ “Okay, as long as he’s not beating my wife or kids, then I need to tolerate the fact that others have different beliefs.”
The difficult cases add up quickly. And that’s why --in my opinion-- any discussion of “Should we be tolerant of others?” is an empty question. We all agree that we should be tolerant in some cases and we should “stick our noses in” in other cases.
The meat of the discussion is in deciding where to draw the line. “Is tolerance a virtue” is a vacuous inquiry.
I think when someone asks “Is tolerance really all it’s cracked up to be?” it’s reasonable to assume they’re not merely asking if evil should be tolerated but whether tolerance itself should be tolerated any longer.
In an age whose ethos is defined as “you’re either with us or against us” that sort of question is pretty much inevitable.
Compounded by the fact that we’re in a post-literacy age in which a Simpsonian world view has just about displaced any vestiges of a Jeffersonian world view, it’s doubly inevitable that such historically unmoored theses as “Is Intolerance The Magic Bullet To Solve The World’s Problems?” would eventually seep into serious discussions.
The really perplexing question though is why those of us who reached the age of reason before The Simpsons began dominating the American consciousness aren’t ready and able to offer better guidance on the obvious dangers of repeating the darkest chapters of human history.
[quote=“spook”]
The really perplexing question though is why those of us who reached the age of reason before The Simpsons began dominating the American consciousness aren’t ready and able to offer better guidance on the obvious dangers of repeating the darkest chapters of human history.[/quote]
What’s [i]really[/i] perplexing is how the Simpsons and America end up being part of any and all discussions here.
