Is tolerance about putting up with something you don't like?

[Norsemaiden]

We are always told how wonderful it is to have a tolerant society, yet what else is tolerance than gritting your teeth about something that annoys you? And how can that be better than a society in which people feel much in common with each other?

Is tolerance a virtue, or do you agree with me that it only causes problems? For example, if you have a population who exercises tolerance, and they are imposed upon by radical people who demand others tolerate them and their demands, then it can be seen that the idea of tolerance is one that serves the intolerant agenda of those who wish to shake up society and that the tolerant people are lambs to the slaughter.

Can you see instances of where arrogant groups demand that they recieve tolerance from others, and yet those others don't seem to realise that this is not reciprocated. Like Jesus, these tolerant people seem to think that turning the other cheek will not only demonstrate their own virtue, but will also magically transform the arrogant groups mentioned into... well into what exactly... something nice but not at all specific...

Mostly though, the tolerant people are merely obeying the rules of modern society and they lack the courage to look more deeply into the consequences of their passivity. (Alternatively they are pointlessly passive-aggressive by tolerating while complaining loudly and doing nothing or having any solution.)

Does this all sound cryptic or do you understand what I am driving at?

 

[Cythraul]

I don't really see what the problem is. Even if tolerance were a virtue it obviously wouldn't follow that it's appropriate to be tolerant in every context. The same goes for virtually everything we'd call a virtue, I suppose.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I don't really see what the problem is. Even if tolerance were a virtue it obviously wouldn't follow that it's appropriate to be tolerant in every context. The same goes for virtually everything we'd call a virtue, I suppose.

Good point, but isn't the tolerance that politicians urge upon our populations (a tolerance which, here in the UK is called the very definition of what it is to be British) not the virtue we are told it is at all, but rather a surrendering and an invitation to be trampled?

 

[razoredge]

I know exactly what you are talking about but could never have put it in such good words. I have always mocked this supposed tolerant society that adheres to zero tolerance laws. Seems so contradictory. We are suppose to tolerate everything, yet be condemned for less than perfect human flaws and nature. One the legal basis we cant tolerate someone that gets their feathers ruffled and puts their foot down but we can tolerate the shakers and rollers totally screwing up economies (peoples futures). Its all a bunch of nonsense to me and I honestly believe its a created distraction for the masses struggling to be "good people" while the elite slip out the back door with our piggy banks.

Threshold has a bit pertaining to this in the song Art of Reason

it was there right before our eyes we were blind not to realise
in the rush to be globalised we signed away our freedom
we forgot how to criticise we were scared to be demonised
as the truth was neutralised we lost the art of reason

whatever... I totally agree and refuse to be tolerant of anything but the little things

 

[hexwind]

If everyone take care of their own business (doesn't mean ignore the others) and don't try to put their nose into other's life.. we would have a tolerant society IMO !! coz the problem is that each one wanna see the world the way they want it to be ! thus, tolerance would never be achieved !!!
[sorry for my english lol]

 

[monoxide_child]

We are always told how wonderful it is to have a tolerant society, yet what else is tolerance than gritting your teeth about something that annoys you? And how can that be better than a society in which people feel much in common with each other?

Is tolerance a virtue, or do you agree with me that it only causes problems? For example, if you have a population who exercises tolerance, and they are imposed upon by radical people who demand others tolerate them and their demands, then it can be seen that the idea of tolerance is one that serves the intolerant agenda of those who wish to shake up society and that the tolerant people are lambs to the slaughter.

Can you see instances of where arrogant groups demand that they recieve tolerance from others, and yet those others don't seem to realise that this is not reciprocated. Like Jesus, these tolerant people seem to think that turning the other cheek will not only demonstrate their own virtue, but will also magically transform the arrogant groups mentioned into... well into what exactly... something nice but not at all specific...

Mostly though, the tolerant people are merely obeying the rules of modern society and they lack the courage to look more deeply into the consequences of their passivity. (Alternatively they are pointlessly passive-aggressive by tolerating while complaining loudly and doing nothing or having any solution.)

Does this all sound cryptic or do you understand what I am driving at?

i totally agree with you here
tolerance is not really natural
racism, homophobia, and other types of prejudice have to be learned, obviously, but to tolerate those things that annoy us? no that's not natural
i'm not gonna hit a guy cause he's black, but i'll hit a guy cause he's being a my pals, if you can understand the difference
it's like i don't really care if you're gay, but stop hitting on me already
i perfectly understand and totally agree with this Norsemaiden person, i'm just having difficulty composing a coherent response

 

[monoxide_child]

Good point, but isn't the tolerance that politicians urge upon our populations (a tolerance which, here in the UK is called the very definition of what it is to be British) not the virtue we are told it is at all, but rather a surrendering and an invitation to be trampled?

tolerance leads to being trampled

 

[monoxide_child]

Good point, but isn't the tolerance that politicians urge upon our populations (a tolerance which, here in the UK is called the very definition of what it is to be British) not the virtue we are told it is at all, but rather a surrendering and an invitation to be trampled?

if you want to delve into the laws protecting minorities...
that's pandora's box if i've ever seen one
these laws kinda contradict the idea of "majority rule" where the minorities are actually treated better than the majority, which is elitist, with the specific issue of race, it's actually possible that america will eventually see Malcolm X's dream of the blacks ruling over the whites, with CPS strictures and Gay adoption advocates it's possible that the number of gay foster parents will eventually exceed the number of straight foster parent couples etc etc etc etc with every minority/"disenfranchised" group

 

[razoredge]

to sum up how I interpret what has been said... yes, we have become a wanker society of bleeding hearts... who ironically stab each other in the back in persuit of their politically correct "stripes"... and the puppet masters muse at our distraction

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes - so why do people fall for it?

I don't think the minorities really feel under the same pressure to "tolerate" as the majority do. The minorities are always getting angry and demanding everything goes their way, while those they want things from actually really feel anxious to please and to at least appear as if they don't have a problem with this.

In fact of course the majority really does resent the demands of these minorities because otherwise "tolerance" wouldn't even be an issue because they would embrace them with open arms.

The majority is just not organised enough to say "stop" and laws have been passed to punish individuals who try to criticise - as well as a system of social opprobrium which is organised by the government, media and education system as well as lobbies.

 

[Blowtus]

Tolerance is great. It is the understanding that though I may be annoyed / disadvantaged now, I will likely annoy / disadvantage someone in the future. Though the exact numerical figure on the tolerance 'trade-off' as such is always unknown, the gain in efficiency / capacity through simply not having continual conflict is large enough to make the trade worthwhile in any case where it is at all in the vicinity of 50/50 cost / benefit.

I think the issue you speak of arises because people take the relatively benign, permanent or semi-permanent labels of race, religion, sex, for which I think it is entirely rational to encourage complete tolerance, to encompass a more specific set of mannerisms that may not be so rational to tolerate. The point I am trying to get at is that tolerance for broad constructs such as race and religion is likely too often equated with tolerance for specific actions which people have decided are a part of those constructs. So, while I think it is irrational to have a problem with Satanists, if certain Satanists were to allege that the sacrifice of children was a core of their religion, such an action should not be tolerated simply because it is categorised as falling under the broader construct of Satanism or religion.

Basically I think those who espouse it as such a virtue in every situation fail to consider the cost / benefit ratio that should be at the heart of the idea.

 

[tr00nty]

"Tolerance" simply implies a fundamental lack of accpetance, which is probably the better word.

 

[Blowtus]

"Tolerance" simply implies a fundamental lack of accpetance, which is probably the better word.

Not really... 'murder' 'war' and 'genocide' also imply a fundamental lack of acceptance.

 

[tr00nty]

Not really... 'murder' 'war' and 'genocide' also imply a fundamental lack of acceptance.

But they are not generally seen as a good thing. You're not really getting this, are you?

 

[Blowtus]

I might have mis-read you - were you wanting to replace the term tolerance with 'acceptance' or 'fundamental lack of acceptance'? Your initial statement is a good reason why acceptance is not a useful replacement, just as my response is a good reason why 'fundamental lack of acceptance' isn't either. Tolerance is a specific manner of engagement towards something for which there is some problem / dislike, it is not simply a feeling about something.

 

[razoredge]

tolerance is acting like nothing is bothering you... and after all what is one to be bothered by in todays world.......

gays raising children ? what could possibly be wrong with that, we should all have a extra child or two to donate to the gay "cause"... poor creatures

massive influx of immigrants ? flooding our job market, keeping wages low, getting their grubbing little hands on our social security money... nothing wrong with that... the pay off is great

millions of Iranians and other various Islamics marching the streets chanting kill _ _ _ _ whatever... yes I can see why we should be tolerant of this

the hords in the getto and elsewhere pumping out babies like a factory for the increased welfare check ? nothing wrong there, its clearly a population and life style that needs its future protected and strenghtened

people that use the freedom of speach in the US constitution as an excuse to be disrespectful ? sure to be exactly what our forefathers were thinking of when they wrote it......

now these are just the more rediculous... seemingly innocent things we are expected to tolerate relating to the mass population only... you know, that which keeps us distracted. No mention of other groups with more illegal activities or examples of how the elite are the biggest crooks in the world.

tolerance is BS and there would be no need for tolerance if our government didnt stuff all this crap and its burdon down our throats

 

[tr00nty]

tolerance is acting like nothing is bothering you... and after all what is one to be bothered by in todays world.......

gays raising children ? what could possibly be wrong with that, we should all have a extra child or two to donate to the gay "cause"... poor creatures

massive influx of immigrants ? flooding our job market, keeping wages low, getting their grubbing little hands on our social security money... nothing wrong with that... the pay off is great

millions of Iranians and other various Islamics marching the streets chanting kill _ _ _ _ whatever... yes I can see why we should be tolerant of this

the hords in the getto and elsewhere pumping out babies like a factory for the increased welfare check ? nothing wrong there, its clearly a population and life style that needs its future protected and strenghtened

people that use the freedom of speach in the US constitution as an excuse to be disrespectful ? sure to be exactly what our forefathers were thinking of when they wrote it......

now these are just the more rediculous... seemingly innocent things we are expected to tolerate relating to the mass population only... you know, that which keeps us distracted. No mention of other groups with more illegal activities or examples of how the elite are the biggest crooks in the world.

tolerance is BS and there would be no need for tolerance if our government didnt stuff all this crap and its burdon down our throats

Wow, you really are monumentally ignorant on multiple levels. The saddest thing is that you are aware of social issues but are completely oblivious to the causes, presumably because blaming the people you can see every day is a great deal easier. Just wow.

 

[razoredge]

Wow, you really are monumentally ignorant on multiple levels. The saddest thing is that you are aware of social issues but are completely oblivious to the causes, presumably because blaming the people you can see every day is a great deal easier. Just wow.

always fun getting the fur up on the likes of you... so quick to throw out the "ignorant" distraction... because I didnt write an entire book on the subject. Trust me, I know whats going on, all the causes, all the excuses, all the manipulation. But alas rather than getting the point or addressing any particular area you thought was "ignorant", you just tantrumed out. Not my first rodeo

 

[Resonator]

The only reason people don't tolerate shit is because they don't want to. Not because of their emotions, not because of the reasonable logic at hand, it's purely will talking.

Satanists can sacrifice children all they want, people CAN but WON'T tolerate it. The standpoint is modified by morals based on good judgment at the time.

 

[Blowtus]

The only reason people don't tolerate shit is because they don't want to. Not because of their emotions, not because of the reasonable logic at hand, it's purely will talking.

Uhuh... because 'will' is completely disconnected from emotion and rationale yeah?