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

[Norsemaiden]

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.

It would be good if you would explain yourself, but from this you sound like one of the people who would say that the reason black ghettos have high levels of crime is because prejudice and poverty cause the crime, not the kind of people living there. Yet the poorest village in the US is Kiryas Joel, which is full of Hasidic Jews and does not have a high crime level. The people there manage to live in a civilised way despite being overwhelmingly on benefits. There is a very high level of marriage and the fathers as well as mothers bring up the children. Also my great grandparents brought up a score of children in extreme poverty, and people like them were not criminals.

You sound like the sort of person that would claim the reason AIDS is more common in black gay American men even than it is anywhere in the Third World is because of racism by Whites and the medical establishment.

Links for the two above issues:
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090130/NEWS/901300361

and

http://www.sovo.com/2009/1-30/news/localnews/9731.cfm

Please don't just leave it for us to draw these conclusions about your views if they are off the mark.

 

[OldScratch]

"Tolerance" in the modern vernacular is simply a euphamism that generally means something entirely different than that which it implies. It isn't "tolerance" when one is essentially forced by law or threat of reprisal(job loss, social ostracism, violence, etc.) and the like to tacitly accept what they find repellant, foolhardy or dangerous - it is compulsion. It's an overused analogy, but there is something undeniably "Orwellian" about the way this term is often used in modern times.

Obviously, some degree of "organic" tolernace, for lack of a better way to put it, is good, even necessary for a stable society. Surely, we don't all like, believe or desire the same things, or possess the same behavioral standards(within the law I mean), etc.
But today, the concept is more akin to "tolerate or else," which seems to rather betray the very idea of tolerance in the first place. It isn't really tolerance many are after, but wholesale
acceptance and recognition...which naturally creates a good deal of conflict when others aren't necessarily receptive to it all.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Old Scratch has it exactly right as usual. "Tolerance" is a New Speak word like "discrimination" and "prejudice" that has taken on a new meaning intended to create a Pavlovian response. We are all urged to "tolerate" people who are a pain in the neck, while they themselves have no intention of tolerating the rest of us who have to offer no resistance to their agenda.

How it should be, if you tolerate someone or something, has to be because it helps society or a relationship run more smoothly, and the things we are asked by our governments to tolerate are in fact doing the opposite. A society needs a level of harmony and common ground to work, and this is never achieved by means of pluralism.

 

[razoredge]

That was a good post OldScratch

 

[OldScratch]

That was a good post OldScratch

Thank you.

 

[Justin S.]

It isn't "tolerance" when one is essentially forced by law or threat of reprisal(job loss, social ostracism, violence, etc.) and the like to tacitly accept what they find repellant, foolhardy or dangerous - it is compulsion.

I don't understand why tolerance is contrasted with compulsion in this way. If to be tolerant means to endure something, to bear it, or even suffer it, the issue of whether this stems from one's judgment or is enforced by a larger authority is a different aspect (though important). In other words, tolerance is a condition that comes about in a variety of ways (and not simply issued by one's will). Law (or less explicitly, custom) establishes, among other things, what a society tolerates and does not, what the "tolerances" are or what deviations are permissible.

It isn't really tolerance many are after, but wholesale acceptance and recognition...which naturally creates a good deal of conflict when others aren't necessarily receptive to it all.

It certainly is different to tolerate something in the sense of enduring it, and to extol (which shares the root tol) something as good and choiceworthy. I also agree that many (perhaps more ) wield words simply as a weapon with little regard for meaning, and that their statements are purely "designed for effect." This is almost a rule in the low-lands of "culture wars," which is why a healthy distance is important.

 

[OldScratch]

I don't understand why tolerance is contrasted with compulsion in this way. If to be tolerant means to endure something, to bear it, or even suffer it, the issue of whether this stems from one's judgment or is enforced by a larger authority is a different aspect (though important). In other words, tolerance is a condition that comes about in a variety of ways (and not simply issued by one's will). Law (or less explicitly, custom) establishes, among other things, what a society tolerates and does not, what the "tolerances" are or what deviations are permissible.



It certainly is different to tolerate something in the sense of enduring it, and to extol (which shares the root tol) something as good and choiceworthy. I also agree that many (perhaps more ) wield words simply as a weapon with little regard for meaning, and that their statements are purely "designed for effect." This is almost a rule is the low-lands of "culture wars," which is why a healthy distance is important.

Valid points. I used the contrast with compulsion entirely because of the manner in which the term tolerance is now used in socio-political circles. That is to say, used as a weapon as you observed above, and used with the clear implication that one must either be fully "tolerant" or be dubbed a "bigot, hater, ignorant, etc." One can be deemed "intolerant" for challenging, resisting, or rejecting the ideals or ideas which are allegedly inherent in the "tolerant" position. According to modern "politically correct" orthodoxy, being "tolerant" is the only right-minded way to be.

If we were speaking of tolerance in keeping with a strictly technical definition, I would fully agree with your first point. But it is a loaded word now - it carries its own meanings withing its meaning. A similar example(and along the same topical lines) would be the term "discrimination." Discrimination is hardly an inherently negative activity. Yet the word is now inextricably linked to alleged acts of racial, ethnic, sexual or some other hostility, impropriety and carries a negative connotation almost exclusively.

So my contrast point was probably a bit of unintentional word play with regard to the dictionary technical vs. the contemporary political(for lack of a better phrase)definition.

I hope that made some sense - I've been awake for about 22 hours and was heading to bed after a quick visit here!

 

[wildfyr]

Valid points. I used the contrast with compulsion entirely because of the manner in which the term tolerance is now used in socio-political circles. That is to say, used as a weapon as you observed above, and used with the clear implication that one must either be fully "tolerant" or be dubbed a "bigot, hater, ignorant, etc." One can be deemed "intolerant" for challenging, resisting, or rejecting the ideals or ideas which are allegedly inherent in the "tolerant" position. According to modern "politically correct" orthodoxy, being "tolerant" is the only right-minded way to be.

If we were speaking of tolerance in keeping with a strictly technical definition, I would fully agree with your first point. But it is a loaded word now - it carries its own meanings withing its meaning. A similar example(and along the same topical lines) would be the term "discrimination." Discrimination is hardly an inherently negative activity. Yet the word is now inextricably linked to alleged acts of racial, ethnic, sexual or some other hostility, impropriety and carries a negative connotation almost exclusively.

So my contrast point was probably a bit of unintentional word play with regard to the dictionary technical vs. the contemporary political(for lack of a better phrase)definition.

I hope that made some sense - I've been awake for about 22 hours and was heading to bed after a quick visit here!

That's interesting. I learned in high school that the word discrimination comes from the Latin word: discrimen

discrimen, -inis, n., danger, crisis

And that is no lie, old chap.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Main Entry:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation:
dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən
Function:
noun
Date:
1648
1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
synonyms see discernment
&#8212; dis·crim·i·na·tion·al -shn&#601;l, -sh&#601;-n&#601;l adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Really all discrimination means then is considering something different from another thing in some way. In the case of accusations of "racial discrimination" the politically correct view is that one should not even so much as recognise that someone is racially different to someone else, yet this is always hopelessly hypocritical because the proponents of this view notice the race of the person supposedly unfairly making the racial discrimination and make a big deal out of that! And then the state uses racial profiling.

I get the impression that the political correctness forces really don't want people to make judgements for themselves over what is safe and what is not, or what to like and what to dislike unless it is thoroughly approved of by the social engineers. But then that's what you'd expect from social engineers anyway of course. If you make a judgement that they disapprove of, no matter how much personal experience went into that judgement never mind instinct or personal taste (which one should have a human right to express if it doesn't physically wound anyone innocent) then this is automatically "prejudice". But "prejudice" really means pre judging something - ie making a judgement before considering the evidence - and the political correctness forces actually insist upon people not considering evidence and just following the dogma they are fed!

 

[wildfyr]

I think we, as humans (both male and female), should try to be tolerant of things we may not like. Those who profess to adhere to certain religious or philosophical moral codes are taught not to judge others. Some believe a greater entity will eventually do that very same thing to ALL of us. This belief is not limited to those following the Judeo-Christian or Islamics faiths either. There are some who believe their deeds will be weighed in the balance in the afterlife. On the flip side of that, and as most of us already know, there are also those who do not subscribe to these views at all.

Human nature being what it is, judgment still flourishes among the faithful [insert religious creed], devout [insert philosophical creed], and non-believers alike - as hard as we may try not to. I still struggle with this all the time but I try to be more aware of it when it happens and try to correct. The parable of the Wheat and the Tares growing up together usually helps readjust the mindset when I ask myself, "which one are you" in the case?

Anyway, to put a secular spin on this rant, Chuck told us that Without Judgement perception would increase a million times.

I'm not sure if it's exactly a million but I believe the increase part to be true.

 

[Blowtus]

Without judgement, perception serves no purpose

 

[wildfyr]

I can perceive that you replied in this thread but I won't judge it.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

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?

To tolerate something without heed to consequence is akin to surrender. To tolerate for the time being while determining how to strike at the problem is strategic.

However, there is something to be said for property rights. Those that stay with their own kind and on their own property and own enclaves and that cause no trouble have perpetrated nothing that requires any tolerance. It is because this brown tide that has come over the west like an overflowing septic tank is causing crime and costing the native peoples money that it warrants swift and brutal retribution. I want to see fresh heads upon pikes at the ports and across the border!