Was it Sting or someother bald git who penned something such as:
“How Can I Turn The Other Cheek, when it’s bruised, bloody, and torn?”
Tolerance is somthing to be earned or granted. Some have more of it than others, and over a widely differing array of situtational ethics, tolerance is the key.
Right now I am tolerating the EXTREMELY loud funeral ceremony of someone who MUST have been someone important. They are using a foklift to position park their cars. I’m waiting for the vertical lift.
I kinda lie. I tolerate it alright, but I need reinforcement from some German Beer, AC/DC, and a few American Steaks marinating for a BBQ!
After all, TheGingerMan is a Stout (lover) Internationalist…
Tolerance, by definition, is a necessary component of democracy. America is the leader of the free world but there’s a fundamental struggle for its soul going on there now between the reactionary forces of intolerance and fear and those committed to preserving its traditional values of tolerance, freedom and respect.
If the reactionaries win and the birthplace of democracy goes dark, there’s little stopping the world from sliding into a global dark age in which reactionary police states dominate and the ends justify the means displaces liberty and justice for all as the highest good.
Anyone who’s under the illusion that their society is immune to such a fate is ignorant of the history of good versus evil since the time the wisest, most virtuous being ever created, Lucifer, destroyed himself with the sin of pride to today when the most powerful nation the world has ever seen is engaged in a similar struggle over who and what it is.
And all the rest of what you’ve said is fine as well (if a bit melodramatic).
At the end of the day, I trust that you will agree with me that “tolerance” means nothing unless it is applied to a particular action/behavior.
Nobody here (I don’t think) would say that the husband in my last example should be allowed to beat his wife and children black and blue with a baseball bat. Nobody here thinks that a heroin adict should be allowed to addict their young children to the drug. Nobody here thinks that “tolerance” has any meaning beyond: “There are some things we should tolerate. And there are some things we should not tolerate.”
So what’s the point? What’s the point in celebrating “toleration” divorced from specific examples?
There is none.
Yes, we all agree that if one person wants to pray quietly to AKJDFAS in their own home, and another person wants to pray to KLDWWUA… then we should tolerate it. But we also all agree that if one person wants to rape the 10 year old daughter of another man because that man owes him a debt… well we don’t tolerate that do we?
So what exactly are you saying? “Toleration is a necessary component of democracy?” Fine, so long as you also say that “Non-toleration (of, for example: voter intimadation, or racial discrimination) is also a necessary component of democracy.” In other words, toleration is a component of democracy, and so is non-toleration.
What have you established? Only that some actions ought to be tolerated, and other actions ought not to be tolerated.
You are back to square one.
The general statement means nothing. It’s a waste of time.
It’s pretty clear from statements made here (and other forums) that we’re talking about intolerance of different values and cultures, not the trivial “intolerance of evil.”
Some people seem to be having increasing difficulty telling the difference.
[quote=“spook”]It’s pretty clear from statements made here (and other forums) that we’re talking about intolerance of different values and cultures, not the trivial “intolerance of evil.”
Some people seem to be having increasing difficulty telling the difference.[/quote]
That’s fair, spook. And of course I did not really think that you were advocating “tolerance” as a completely abstract value (which would be just as absurd as saying that our society should be more ‘supportive’ or ‘opposed’ — without an object these statements are meaningless).
So let me concede that by clarifying that you mean “tolerance of different values and cultures” you have narrowed the field, and made the statement more meaningful.
However, with respect, how much you have narrowed the field?
Which “evil acts” can we rule out by narrowing the “be tolerant” imperative to “other values and cultures”?
Can we rule out beating one’s wife?
—> No, some cultures condone that, so we would need to be tolerant.
Can we rule out horrific genital mutilation of young girls?
—> No, some cultures condone that, so we would need to be tolerant.
Can we rule out the gang-rape of a young girl as punishment for the misdeeds of her older brother?
—> No, some cultures condone that, so we would need to be tolerant.
Can we rule out the killing of a person who converts to Christianity?
—> No, some cultures condone that, so we would need to be tolerant.
Can we rule out burning a wife alive on a bonfire when her husband dies?
—> No, some cultures condone that, so we would need to be tolerant.
You see where I am going with this, surely?
Saying “We should be tolerant of other values and cultures” still leaves us asking:
WHICH values? WHICH traditions? WHICH actions? … should we tolerant of?
Some (worshiping Deity X rather than Deity Y) should be tolerated.
Some (putting a woman to death for the “crime” of being raped) should not be tolerated.
Aren’t you then left with: Tolerance itself (even of “other values and cultures”) is not intrinsically virutuous – but rather the value of tolerance depends on WHAT action/behavior we are asked to tolerate?
Maybe this will clarify the sort of “you’re either with us or against us” sickness of the soul that I’m talking about:
". . . But this new wave of executions was different. It was more sadistic and less selective. These people weren’t rounded up because they were important. They were tortured and killed simply because of their religion. And because most of them were Sunni Muslim Arabs, there was no response from the Shiite-led government. . . .
Not enough can be said about the attack on a Shiite shrine in Samarra last month. That explosion opened a cycle of revenge that seems to have split modern Iraqi history. There is before Samarra and after. Before Samarra, many Iraqis tried to play down Sunni-Shiite tensions. Since Samarra, they live in mortal fear of them.
If this all sounds depressing, it is. That’s how people here feel. I’ve been looking hard, but in two weeks I haven’t found an Iraqi optimist. . . .
I recently met a Sunni man who used to be virulently anti-American. He showed me postmortem pictures of his younger brother, who had been kidnapped by death squads and had holes drilled in his face.
It seems to me that when some people ask others to be tolerant of something, what they really mean is that they want them to accept that thing. Tolerance and acceptance are sometimes the same, but just as often they are different. The line between the two is not necessarily a clear one. I tolerate racists and homophobes as best I can, but I sure as hell don’t accept their way of thinking as a position worthy of my respect. I’ll tolerate their right to think that way, but I won’t accept their thoughts as valid. At appropriate times and places, I will give them a hard time. If I were an employer and a well qualified prospective hire showed signs of being a bigot during the hiring process, I sure as hell wouldn’t tolerate, much less accept his or her bigotry to the point of offering a job. Tolerance in such a situation is really no different from acceptance in my opinion.
So far, I don’t think anyone has disputed my main point (which perhaps is my fault for not making it more plain) which is that tolerance is not a great virtue, though I would contend that it is made out to be. In certain circumstances tolerance may be practical, or even inevitable – for instance one who does not like gravity has no choice but to tolerate it. I would say however that people are generally much better off if they can either embrace, accept or change a circumstance rather than merely tolerate it. For instance someone mentioned rude drivers — perhaps bitterly tolerating them is the only practical thing – but is it really the best thing? No – it would be much better if they changed their behavoir – tolerance does nothing to help that happen.
You bet it is made out to be a great virtue. Take Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount for example:
[quote]“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)
“But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,”
“Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version) [/quote]
The above is the epitome of tolerance. I’m not a Christian, but I believe there’s a lot of wisdom in the above words. True, one doesn’t want to be walked all over. One doesn’t want to be abused by freeloaders, moochers, thieves and others who strike ones cheek and steal ones tunic. But the world would clearly be a better place if more people engaged in restraint, compassion, understanding, patience and gentle communication rather than aggression, retaliation, force, brutality, revenge and pre-emptive strikes. And if everyone says “I’m not going to engage in such soft, wimpy behavior unless/until everyone else does,” no progress will be made in that direction. Instead, people need to start acting that way one at a time and one can only hope that others will witness such good deeds and emulate them. Maybe that sounds impossibly idealistic, but the converse – resorting to force and violence – is unlikely to make the world a better place.
You haven’t lived in Taiwan long, have you? For the first year or so after I arrived, I got pissed off at all the asshole drivers running red lights and cutting me off as I walked across at the green light. Sometimes I’d flip them off, sometimes I’d slam my hand against their cars as they passed by. I also had little tolerance for assholes blocking the sidewalk as they jabbered on their cell phones or swung their umbrellas wildly in my face, so I sometimes made a point of slamming them with my elbow as they crossed to close to me.
But I doubt I taught any of those people a lesson. I did get in a pissy mood though, and ruin my day for a short while. Now, however, I’ve learned that there are lots of rude, inconsiderate assholes in Taiwan, who will interfere with my rights from time to time and I have made immense progress in learning to tolerate them. They no longer piss me off. I accept now that they will run red lights. They will cut in front of me in line. They will do such things all the time. But it no longer bothers me. I accept it, I tolerate it, and it causes me no harm. I am now perfectly content to let them rush through the light or jump in front of me. Sometimes I’ll say something to the line jumper in front of me to try to peacefully educate them, but rarely do I feel a need to strike them on the cheek or steal their tunics. In such cases, I feel that tolerance IS the best thing and it causes my life to be happier and more peaceful.
I tried to do so by pointing out the virtuous effects of tolerance to society at large, but that could be written off as merely a positive consequence. Could you clarify what you have in mind when it comes to “virtue”?
As a Christian, I certainly agree with Jesus’s statements, though I don’t attribute them to tolerance, but to love, which I believe to be entirely different. Though the result may appear the same, the Christian is not motivated by a sense of begrudgingly accepting the sin, but by the idea that to sin in response to sin is still wrong, and by the idea that the best way to change the sin is through not retaliating. While some “tolerance” of the man’s actions may show up as the practical result, it is not the motivating factor. The reason I focus on this aspect is that it seems to me that a lot of people talk about tolerance for its own sake, which I think is a tremendous fallacy.
As for living in Taiwan, I don’t live there. My connection is through my wife, we have had plans to visit Taiwan several times but have been thwarted by practicalities, schedules, and SARS.
I hope in this thread i haven’t come off as promoting hatred, violence or the things that have come to be grouped in as intolerance (if I have its probably my own fault). I only wanted to examine tolerance as a general virtue, which I think should be questioned, given the amount of promotion the idea recieves.
By virtue I mean something that in and of itself is good --things like love, courage or hope. I don’t view tolerance as falling into that category, I think tolerance is more of a practical result when change is impossible or the means to change are so bad as to be worse than the problem itself. Thus I see little value in promoting tolerance as a general idea. I see some situations where tolerating a problem to an extent is good – but only until change can be brought about by measures that are not so draconian as to be worse than the problem itself.
I see your point, redandy, that the word tolerate seems to imply begrudgingly accepting something, but I’m not sure it has to carry that meaning. I don’t believe it has to be a negative thing, as you suggest. No offense intended, but I believe once you move to Taiwan you’ll gain a lot of insight into the subject.
There’s plenty of rude, intolerant, ignorant, aggressive, illegal, stupid behavior that one faces here on a daily basis, that results in ones own life being slightly more complex and more difficult. I believe many foreigners, especially in their early years here, react to such behavior by locals with anger, agression, retaliation, etc. Later, I believe most foreigners (including myself) learn to be more tolerant of such local ways, because it’s unlikely one can teach enough people a lesson that life in Taiwan will change for the better and anger and retaliation only make ones own life more unpleasant (despite the simple thrill of pissing off a bad driver by slamming his car with your hand). So, living in Taiwan, I’ve learned tolerance not begrudgingly, but just naturally as the path of least resistance, which has led me to be happier and more relaxed. I don’t resent having to tolerate all those assholes; I haven’t given up anything. I haven’t suffered any loss or sacrifice by becoming more tolerant. On the contrary, I’ve gained by it, my life has become happier and I’m relieved that I’ve been capable of learning the virtue of tolerance.
You may interpret the Bible in any way you wish, but the tolerance I’ve learned in Taiwan is not out of love for the asshole driver or the jerk cutting in line. I don’t hate those people, but I wouldn’t say I love them. But, as I said, I have no trouble tolerating their wrongful behavior and it’s not a loss to me, it’s a gain that makes my own life better (not to mention perhaps making the world slightly better by setting an example of tolerance rather than revenge, though that’s not my motivation at all).
Thanks for the replies MT, I suppose I at least understand the position a little better, even if I don’t particularly agree with it (though I wouldn’t describe my feelings as “tolerant” ). Anyway, I’ve gotten pretty much what I’ve wanted out of the conversation and I’m going to be busy for the next few days, so I’m going to duck out.
I think that anything “in and of itself good” should be good anywhere and always, and the more the better. Blame it on too much Plato if you will, but I don’t think that love, courage, or hope fits that description. Rather each is a virtue in particular situations, to a particular degree. Love someone or something too much, and you’ll deny others the attention they deserve. Too courageous= fool-hardy; too much hope= impractical.
Tolerance of what you think is bad is a virtue when it reflects your willingness to with doubt, and to not interfere with the ends and means of others. Tolerance of what you dislike may need to be practiced on occasion; living with the imposition of ends and means by those who are intolerant may be very nearly inescapeable and oppressive. Practicing tolerance requires a lesser degree, if more generally felt, of acccomodation than intolerance, which falls heavily on the few. Tolerance thereby promotes a greater of freedom.
Tolerance of what you know is bad is harder to embrace and has a greater downside. You could, however, always take the magnanimous Nietzschean line and declare something along the lines of “What are my parasites to me? I am strong enough abide them. Let them feed.”
My apologies for the duck out Jaboney. I got half a moment and I thought I’d check back. What can I say, I disagree with Plato on that one. However, after thinking things over a little more I’ve concluded that really the main difference here is more one of word usage than of fundamental philosophy. In large part I just think of the word tolerance as a poor description of the underlying ideas. From now on I’ll just read the word tolerance a little differently, and I think things will be hunky-dory. Anyway, I’ll go back to my hole now.
). Anyway, I’ve gotten pretty much what I’ve wanted out of the conversation and I’m going to be busy for the next few days, so I’m going to duck out.