frogza

I've been thinking lately about the use of the word tolerance as a battle cry. I think our society has come a long way because of increased tolerance. Racism, sexism, etc. are being eroded away thanks to greater tolerance in our society. However, every stride we take towards increased tolerance finds us with a group immediatly outside the current threshold asking for society to "let them in". In many cases I'm inclined to let them in, others I'm not.

It's easy to see intolerance as a bad thing, but can't too much tolerance be a bad thing? I have done quite a bit of work with youth from troubled homes, and I've had these kids parents make appeals for society to let them in, so to speak. I have heard fathers ask to be able to marry off their twelve year old daughters and go even so far as to want society to allow them to sleep with and have children with their teenage daughters. Some of the kids I've worked with want us to allow them to settle their scores with drive-bys and gang beatings.

I've seen our societies tendancy to ride "slippery slopes" as I'm sure many of you have. For those who aren't familiar with this term, it means to continue with an idea that may have started out as good until the society in general is locked in extreme and usually damaging ideals. Nazi Germany began as saving the country from it's worst depression in it's history to the extermination of every group that was deemed as inferior. That's one of the most poignant examples of a slippery slope I know of.

So now I ask, where do we draw the line? Which groups do we say no to? Right now we see a large number of groups asking for tolerance, I think it would be good to include some but as you've seen by the few examples I have mentioned, I think some need to stay out in the cold for good. So recognizing that in general TF is a rather liberal community, what do you think?

datacaliber

It's late. I'm tired. But I just wanted to say that I think we've hippie-ized the concept of tolerance. These days, you're a self-righteous closed minded bastard if you don't embrace everyone fully. I think that's why we're seeing a conservative backlash in this country, the tree-hugging peace-and-love hippies hijacked the left and pushed too hard.

Suave

I'm all for making fun of hippies, but tolerance hasn't been "hippie-ized". I don't know of very many people (okay, actually none) who would condone a father marrying his 12 year old daughter. But really, it's completely relative. If you were raised in the society of the 30s and saw the way our society is now, you'd probably think everything had gone to hell, because the coloured folk were using the white bathrooms, and women were voting. I don't think it will get out of control though. We're far from being a tolerant enough society as it is anyway.

flstf

Anything can be done to the extreme but I'm convinced it is almost always better to err on the side of being too tolerant than too restrictive.

Genocide, child incest and drive-bys, etc.. are certainly examples of things that have crossed most people's line of acceptance and there must be laws in place to deal with them. Our whole system of checks and balances depends on how well we draw these lines. However I believe that when an activity is borderline like say alcohol, marijuana laws and gun control we should be more tolerant.

Hopefully our collective wisdom in choosing which activities require government control (laws) and our Constitution will enable us to be tolerant of others and still remain relatively safe.

hannukah harry

nazi germany wasn't a slippery slope. anti-semitism had a long history there, and jews and gypsies were frequent scape-goats. hitler even told the world of his plan in mein kampf, which he wrote before getting into power. the holocaust was premeditated, not slippery slope.

where do we draw the line? i think we draw the line where people are being forced to do things they don't want to. we don't let someone marry off their 12 year old daughter because she is not conisidered property (in the legal sense) and since she can not give legal consent to marry until she's 18, she should only be allowed to marry if she chooses and the parent consents. 12 is still a little young even for that in my opinion.

basically, anything that does not harm someone not participating in a private act, and doesn't hurt the community at large, should be allowed to be done by consenting adults, whether it's gay marriage, smokin' the reefa, going to church on sunday.

the reason you're considered a 'self-righteous closed minded bastard if you don't embrace everyone fully' is because you are. rather than embracing differences between individuals and cultures, you'd rather close yourself off to the new ideas and experiences. that's not to say that everything should be tolerated. honor killings, female genital mutilation and wife-beatings (all found in muslim areas although usually due to local cultures and not islam) should not be tolerated. there is usually a lack of consent by at least one party in each of those i listed. but if you aren't harmed by something, there's no reason not to let others be free to do it. you don't have to like it, but you should be tolerant of others that do.

also, i actually wouldn't call someone 'self-righteious' or a 'bastard' about it, personally. close-minded, yes. bigot? depends on the situation.



word. until there is a compelling reason for society to ban something, it should be allowed. and in my opinion, 'its offensive to my religoius morals' is not a compelling reason (only bringing that up because that's often a reason for intolerence).

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

alansmithee

The problem is that by saying X is should be tolerated and Y shouldn't you are just making an arbitrary distinction, and are no better off than someone saying something shouldn't be tolerated due to their religious beliefs. Personally, i've no problem being a "self-righteous closed minded bastard" my main problem comes with people who don't acnowledge that they are the same. When you chose to tolerate one thing and not another, that's exactly what you are being. By saying a parent can't marry their child, you are being close-minded. You are closing yourself off the the idea and experience of a father marrying his daughter.

I agree that tolerance has been "hippie-ized". It seems (in America at least) that tolerance is whatever liberal policy is, and intolerance is everything else. Whereas both are just differing perspectives on what to not tolerate.

filtherton

If all you were to say is "X is should be tolerated and Y shouldn't" than you are making an arbitrary distinction. This is the problem with making moral decisions based on religious ideals. I think that harry's talking about is using some sort of rational thought to determine what should and should not be tolerated. A good question to ask is who would be hurt if we tolerated x behavior? If y group feels threatened, are their fears unfounded, or do they have a legitimate reason to feel threatened? It should shock no one that making good decisions requires a certain amount of thought. I think there is a difference between being close minded and rejecting something based on a rational chain of thought. Unfortunately, both sides are often too quick to tolerate/intolerate.

Also please don't pretend that this is a liberal vs conservative issue.

hiredgun

We might be overthinking the problem by trying to reach some unattainable "golden" level of correct morality.

Society has a way of balancing out its norms on its own. There are always conservative (or let's say "intolerant") ideas and more progressive, or tolerant, ones vying for acceptance in public opinion. We have seen that a "we've always done it that way" attitude has given way to more important concerns regarding equality when it comes to issues of race. We've also seen more libertarian, "go with the flow" attitudes muted by conservative ideas in regard to things like nudism, incest, bestiality, polygamy.

Generally we've gone on a path toward progress in the last century that has had positive effects. Hopefuly we will continue on this path; if we err, we can probably correct ourselves.

Of course when talking about this kind of "free market" of ideas, we have to make the same kind of assumptions we make when dealing with economic markets. To that end, I believe that what we "should" do is to ensure that we are rational actors, making decisions for logical reasons; that we have good information; that no one group has an unreasonable grip on decision-making or public influence.

Beyond these considerations, I don't think we can make normative judgments on "tolerance" or "intolerance" as a whole (which is the problem that was encountered in the original post.) These things have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

datacaliber

Tolerance is a virtue only when it is applied to a belief or practice that you do not agree with. I can't be considered tolerant because I condone people giving me money. Or if I let people, who agree with me, voice their opinions. There's no compassion or character in that.

I respect those who are tolerant of things that they don't agree with. However, I see a lot of hypocrisy from people who push their tolerance on others. Many times, they are "tolerant" of whatever they are already amicable with and then consider everything else ignorant. How many times have you heard "I'm intolerant of intolerance". It's a bunch of crap.

But, I actually wouldn't mind if they were supporting true tolerance. Tolerance, these days, seems to mean that I have to AGREE with whatever I'm tolerating. It's not enough that I don't care what anyone else does, now I have to embrace it in order not to be called a closeminded bigot. And yes, I do think it's hippie-ish and yes, I do think it's more of a liberal thing.

Tolerance, like free speech, is truly celebrated when it applies to something you disagree with or even revile.

datacaliber

Huh? By embrace I mean accepting, agreeing with, etc. BTW, you're not embracing me you close minded bigot.

hannukah harry

see filtherton's response. the daughter should have the right to make her own decision, when she is of legal age. the father should not remove that right from her by forcing marriage on her with someone else.

it may come down to differing opinions, but in this case one side has much more merit than the other. not all opinions are equal, those which don't 'cut the mustard' (or is it muster?) need to be discarded.

word.


Being intolerant of intolerance isn't crap. I'm quiet happy with being intolerant of views and actions that harm others, abuse others, or take away one's right to self-determination, freedom or happiness. And while there are some people who do say the intolerance thing and are a bit hypocritical about it, they are a minority.

Unless Libertarians are liberals, I'd have to say it's not a liberal thing, either.

Tolerance today isn't about making people agree with you. Tolerance is about allowing someone to say/do something that you don't agree with when it is not harmful to others. But as a society we have to set limits on what is allowed. We have to be as tolerant as possible as long as what we are allowing is not a danger to society or people not involved in the activity. if what you want to do doesn't harm me or society in general (like if you want to pray in church, or a federally funded park), then go ahead and do it. but if you want to do something that harms me or society (forced prayer in school, teaching creationism/ID), then i will be intolerant of it because you are being harmful to that which i love (my country, my family, myself... a i let the self-love show! )


dude, i'm not embracing you, and i'm not not embracing you. i have stated no opinion of you. reread what i wrote. it's a 'general' you. not you specifically, but 'you' meaning people in general. kind of like how you (specific) used 'you' (general) in your (specific) post.

and in case you don't know the definition of bigot, from miriam webster
<b>bigot</b>: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

so if you (specific) follow your (specific) views without considering others views and thinking about the situation rationally and logically, then yes, i would say that you (specific) would be a bigot. but since i do not know you (specific), i could not say if you (specific) are one.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

archpaladin

Keep in mind that saying this presupposes a universal standard of 'what cut's the mustard'. (and I think it is mustard, not muster) It shouldn't take too many brain cells to realize that this has never been the case. The father wanting to marry off his 12 year old daughter may be wanting to do this because that's the way his society and belief system always worked in the past. For us to come in and say that this should be illegal would be a severe infringement on his rights to practice his own beliefs.

Equally, by stating that religious values are not acceptable reasons for something not to be tolerated, we proclaim our intolerance of those religious values. We cannot rule out someone's objection of "it's offensive to my religious morals" because in doing so we're being intolerant of someone else's beliefs. In so doing we are assuming the right to say what people can and cannot believe, because by telling someone to shut up about what they believe is effectively telling them they can't or shouldn't believe it. (first amendment rights, anyone?)

I disagree. People's definition of harm or danger is not universal either. What one person considers discipline for their children, another considers child abuse.

I agree that no one should have an unreasonable grip on decision-making or public influence - everyone should have an equal say here. However, making decisions for logical reasons may not often fly when people are presenting objections, because what is considered logical by one person is not logical for another. Also, decisions that seem logical at one time may in fact be seen as harmful at a later time, and reversing a previous decision that was made is often harder than making the right one in the first place. This, however, gets to the checks and balances idea that was presented.

Fallacy. People who make moral decisions based on religious values know exactly why they make the choice. To them it is not arbitrary.

My main point here is that the ideal form of tolerance is all-or-none: either we let everything happen, or we let nothing happen. Of course, we don't do this in practice because if we did either of the two, society would collapse on itself. Unfortunately, we as a society are pulling in two different directions: those who originally pushed for tolerance have hippie-ized it and are now using it as their own personal beating stick on whomever they disagree with or dislike, and those who are now seeking tolerance are meeting a negative reaction because they are trying to get things accepted that few people see as being a good thing. What was once a good idea has now become corrupt.

irateplatypus

i'm uncomfortable framing the discussion this way. to equate conservativism with intolerance directly and progressiveness (whatever it takes not to say "liberal" these days) with tolerance ignores the larger context of the discussion.

it's just as easy for a period of tolerance to be succeeded by a time of intolerance as it is the other way around. to say conservatism promotes intolerance is really only talking about certain issues (race/gender equality for example) at certain times (late 1800s-1970s) at a certain place (western hemisphere).

the revolutionary becomes a conservative the day after the revolution.

so if there is an optimum level of tolerance, then those who fight to keep appropriate tolerance levels once achieved have become the conservatives. those who seek to change the ideal are then the liberals.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

filtherton

There is a difference between acknowledging and accepting someone's right to feel a certain way and bending over backwards to let them get their way. I am tolerant of the evangelican need to condemn to hell, but i would never support public policy based on that need. I don't read my horospcope either, but that doesn't mean that i am intolerant of everyone else who does.

I know exactly why most religious decisions are made too. That still doesn't make them reasonable, or rational. Don't give this statement more weight than it deserves, but in many ways even being religious flies in the face of rationality. For example, in matters of life or death, would you sooner trust your average christian or your average scientist? I know who i'd pick and chances are my choice would have the periodic table memorized. It is arbitrary, because in the specific instances i am speaking of it isn't based on rational thought, it is based on interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of religious text. Also, depending on your denomination, god is the most arbitrary of beings. When your power is absolute you don't need logic to impose your will.

How can it be the ideal form of tolerance if embracing it as such would result in the collapse of our society? All or none is almost never a desirable course because most every rule has an exception.

archpaladin

You seem to have misunderstood me.

What I was implying is that we should not dismiss someone's complaint simply because their reasoning involves religious argument, or is otherwise seemingly illogical to us. To dismiss in such a fashion is close-minded. Even if we think (or perhaps is obvious) that some people's religious decisions are not reasonable or irrational, if we're going to adopt a generic stance of tolerance, then we cannot tell them to shut up, because to do so is hypocritical. I didn't mean to imply that we should bend over backwards to let people have their way. Tolerance does not mean I have to agree with you, but it does mean that I have to listen to you and allow you to express yourself regardless of whether or not I think it's just or fair or even lawful. The very presence of government and law in a society shows that such a society is not willing to tolerate certain acts or behaviors. (ie. be intolerant in at least certain ways)

This is why I say tolerance in its ideal, Platonic form, is all-or-none. (not ideal as in the most appealing) People who espouse the benefits of tolerance can do much good for our society, but those people should keep in mind that when put into practice, you can't have complete tolerance because to tolerate everything would result in anarchy. Thus, we have to watch out for people who use tolerance only as a mask for a beating stick against ideas and viewpoints that those people don't agree with, rather than promoting tolerance in its ideal form.

Master_Shake

Maybe not seemingly illogical, but when it actually is illogical I think it's time to let it go. There are simply too many ideas and complaints out there to try and sit through every one. Sift through the bulk of them and listen to the ones that make sense. If they start off with nonsense, it probably isn't going to improve, so rather than waste your time with lunatics, move on.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

bbrown4

This is what I do.

I examine those ideologies that are being thrust upon me as much as I can.
I investigate them on my own to determine if there are aspects that I can relate to or accept. If I do not feel fully educated in a subject - I avoid it or I make it known in conversation that I am not completely educated in the issues.

If I do feel adequately educated enough then it's time to play ball and take a stand.

This is where the rubber meets the road. If I do not agree with an issue then I speak plainly about that issue and why I don't agree with it. I don't belittle or disrespect those who might adhere to that belief but I certainly don't back off and falsely acknowledge it's merits.

Individually, we are all entitled to our beliefs.

archpaladin

Ahh...there's the rub though. If we had presented the idea of women voting 70-80 years ago, we would have been considered lunatics. Not every idea that is presented that sounds crazy is actually crazy. Who sets the standard and judges what is illogical from what is logical? Mainstream society? I wouldn't trust them to do it.


To quote hannukah harry:

mac03

I love the fact that all the Tolerence preachers are intolerent of people who are intolerant of their tolerence

hannukah harry

my head hurts.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

zen_tom

I keep being reminded of something my Mum used to tell me as a child whenever I misbehaved.

"What would happen if everybody did that?"

It strikes me as being one of the wisest things I've ever heard and without thinking about it, I've applied it to much of my later life. I suppose it's a paraphrase of

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or something, but I think it applies to this idea of tolerance/intolerance. What would happen if everyone allowed everything to happen? It all depends on whether you think people are inherently good, or inherently evil. If you belong to the former camp, then more toleration would lead to less stress and aggravation which in turn would lead to a peacefull and gentle paradise of people being pleasant to one another. If you belong to the latter camp, then there will always be those who take advantage of your attitudes and use the freedoms you give them against you.

I lie somewhere between the two extremes, but lean heavily toward the former. How does that get applied in the question of what to tolerate and what not to tolerate? I'm happy to tolerate beliefs, I might argue against them, I might think they are nuts, but it will never stop be from enjoying the company of someone who holds them.

I would not be able to tolerate actions associated with those beliefs if they involved the deliberate harming of someone else. I act this way because I would hope someone else would find it difficult to tolerate a third person who deliberately wanted to harm me. I can only expect others to act ethically and responsibly if I attempt to do so myself.

Master_Shake

Of course, but there are simply too many ideas out there to give each one full and complete attention and consideration. Wasn't it Aristotle who said that there are too many books in the library for a person to read all of them. Although it may not be the ideal way to do things, sometimes you have to judge books by their covers, authors, publishers, etc. to determine if there are worthy of your time.

For example, when Art Bell comes out with another kooky theory that this will be the year humanity gets access to cheap, clean, renewable energy, I tend to dismiss it and not delve any deeper into it. I do this because of the wackiness of his initial premise, but I also do it because of the experiences I have had reading Art Bell's nonsense in the past. Granted, the day may come when Art Bell's predictions come true, and I will be woefully unprepared. But that's a chance I choose to take, and instead of focusing on the psychic powers of mutant children, I choose to focus on reading spy novels, or whatever.

Well, I would like to think that the standard is set by each individual person based upon their unique experiences, but I know that's bullshit. We are indoctrinated by the school system in this country to accept the history of the world as we're supposed to see it. We are broken as individuals and taught to obey, be productive for the man, marry, reporduce and die. That so many people fall into this same pattern is disquieting, and perhaps we just don't deserve to discover new truths and realities if we can't break free.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.