posted
Why bother to be tolerant? If someone violates your religious principles by publishing a cartoon depiction of Mohammad, why not be offended? If some politician uses a funeral to take cheap shots at the president, why not be outraged? If your friend makes a racist joke, why not get angry? If you or something you deeply believe in is attacked, why shouldn't you feel disrespected, hurt, or violated - and why shouldn't you fight back to defend yourself?
I think that somehow in our society we are misunderstanding the value of tolerance. We view tolerance as a courtesy we provide for the sake of other people - to avoid conflict with them. We view it as something people are entitled to, as something we should allow them, in exchange for their being tolerant of us. If they want to wear a turban in public, we feel obliged to tolerate it, FOR THEIR SAKE. We don't want to offend them for doing their own thing. We think it's the right thing to do, or at least the nice thing to do.
And so, when you refuse to tolerate someone else, they think you are violating their right to be tolerated. They get angry too. In exchange for your refusal to tolerate them, they retaliate by not tolerating you. You make fun of my religion? Then I'll make fun of yours! You get mad at the clothes I wear, the things I say, or the choices I make? Fine, I'll stop tolerating you in response. Once you no longer deserve tolerance, I no longer need to tolerate you, so I won't.
I disagree with this view of tolerance. Tolerance is not for the sake of other people. People do not have a right to be tolerated. It is not something they deserve. Rather, I believe the main purpose of tolerance is selfish. I think it is best to tolerate others for your own sake - because the failure to tolerate people ends up hurting yourself. The reason to tolerate people is because it will inevitably make you much happier if you do so, not because you feel some duty to do it for their sake.
I've seen a great many people become offended by a great many things, including both important and trivial things. And, for the vast majority of those cases, becoming offended always seem to hurt oneself. Usually it makes you unhappy, and usually there is nothing you can do about it, even if you try. Bush-haters can be angry and offended all they want over Bush's decisions, but it ultimately achieves nothing, other than to make themselves angry and frustrated. You can get as mad as you wish over your friend's racist jokes, but ultimately that won't solve anything any better than if you simply calmly asked him to stop. Getting offended can destroy your friendships and your relationships. It could make you unhappy at home, or at work, or whereever you are that people frustrate you. It is no coinsidence that the most intolerant people I know are also those that are most miserable, frustrated, and angry at the world.
The point is this: CHILL! If someone can't tolerate you, that's no reason to stop tolerating them, because your tolerance is not done for their sake but rather for your own sake. Any anger you muster will end up hurting you far more than it hurts them. I don't care if you are Muslims angry at distasteful cartoons, Christians angry at PC Christmas displays, or a high school student angry at something your best friend did. Don't be! Chill instead. It's fine to fix things that are wrong, but there is no need to get offended at those things in order to do so. There is no need to get upset. I believe life will go on whether you are happy or frustrated - the only difference will be how much you can enjoy it.
So, why tolerate someone? Not because they deserve it. Because you will be so much happier if you tolerate them.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intolerance is a non-coercive way that we use to influence how people express themselves. We shouldn't have to hear offensive jokes or see offensive cartoons if we don't want to, so intolerance is our way of avoiding the sorts of free expressions that we find offensive. If someone lost all of their friends because of their offensive actions, maybe they would think twice before doing those things again, or maybe they wouldn't care; it's their choice.
On the other hand, being tolerant of a boor might be in your interest if they have something that you want. In other words, tolerance is good for trade.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you really think "tolerate" is the opposite of "don't be offended by"?
No, I think being tolerant does often involve not being offended by things you need not be offended by, but that might otherwise make you resist, fight back, or get angry.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that somehow in our society we are misunderstanding the value of tolerance.
I'll certainly agree to that.
quote:We view it as something people are entitled to, as something we should allow them, in exchange for their being tolerant of us. If they want to wear a turban in public, we feel obliged to tolerate it, FOR THEIR SAKE. We don't want to offend them for doing their own thing. We think it's the right thing to do, or at least the nice thing to do.
This is basically where your argument breaks down due to murkiness. 'Tolerate' is a tricky, subjective word and to different people it means different things. For instance, to me I am tolerating someone if I attempt to organize a boycott of their products in response to some statement they've made. However, possibly to Storm Saxon (since he and I have disagree on this in the past, and I think it's a useful, relevant example) would think I was being intolerant.
But I would say that since I wasn't trying to use force against them to silence them, I was in fact tolerating their speech. That's not an argument I want to get into here, but the point is 'tolerate' means different things to different people. There are degrees of tolerance. I can tolerate something to the point of being outraged by it and telling the speaker I am outraged, or I can view the speech as absolutely intolerable to the point that I try to kill them or do violence to them to silence them.
quote:The reason to tolerate people is because it will inevitably make you much happier if you do so, not because you feel some duty to do it for their sake.
I certainly agree with this statement, but only if you mean tolerate the way I mean it: to be offended by something communicated, but take no action to compel the silence of the communicator in response.
quote:The point is this: CHILL! If someone can't tolerate you, that's no reason to stop tolerating them, because your tolerance is not done for their sake but rather for your own sake. Any anger you muster will end up hurting you far more than it hurts them.
You're certainly wrong about that, and not just because it's rooted in sappy 'Don't worry, be happy' mentality. If, for example, I was offended to the point of violence by something you said and I killed you for it, certainly the anger I've mustered hurt you more than me. Mortally so.
quote:I believe life will go on whether you are happy or frustrated - the only difference will be how much you can enjoy it.
This kind of thinking leads to a world that forever stagnates in the status quo. Why try to change anything? You'll only be frustrated. Just enjoy what you've got, and be happy. Furthermore, it denies the usefulness of anger as an emotion.
Anger is probably one of the most useful emotional responses besides fear, in a strictly short-term, utilitarian point of view. It has its drawbacks, of course, but what emotion doesn't? Certainly the 'don't be offended, be happy' response has its drawbacks. For one, it's a ridiculously artificial and high standard to expect people to live up to. Second, it will lead to stagnation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit. 2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others). 3. To put up with; endure. 4. Medicine. To have tolerance for (a substance or pathogen).Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think being tolerant does often involve not being offended by things you need not be offended by
There's no need to tolerate something you don't somehow dislike. Nor are you not tolerating something if you are offended by it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are degrees of tolerance. I can tolerate something to the point of being outraged by it and telling the speaker I am outraged, or I can view the speech as absolutely intolerable to the point that I try to kill them or do violence to them to silence them.
I agree, and I'm not certain where the line between tolerance and intolerance is - it probably depends on the context. But my opinion is that intolerance can be passive, hating something or being offended by it yet taking no physical action against it. That's the intolerance that might be felt by a black man entering an all-white country club and facing stares and glares, but no complaints or actions to stop him.
quote:If, for example, I was offended to the point of violence by something you said and I killed you for it, certainly the anger I've mustered hurt you more than me. Mortally so.
I would say the killing is the thing that hurt me, not the anger. If killing was the right thing to do, better to recognize that without getting angry.
Anger can be useful in some situations, because it gets you to do things that you might otherwise not, or because it can help you deal with doing something you'd otherwise hate to do. But, on the balance, I think it's far more often a bad thing, unless you are very good at controlling it.
quote:There's no need to tolerate something you don't somehow dislike.
Need to? No. But I think there is often a good reason to do it anyway, for your own sake, even if not for the sake of others.
Tolerance is not good in all circumstances. It might not even be good in most. But I'm pretty confident there are a great many situations in which people are not tolerant and should be.
Let me reiterate that the point of this is a thread is not to suggest it is wise to ALWAYS be tolerant. My point is a question of WHY you should be tolerant in those instances where it is wise to do so.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say the killing is the thing that hurt me, not the anger. If killing was the right thing to do, better to recognize that without getting angry.
Anger can be useful in some situations, because it gets you to do things that you might otherwise not, or because it can help you deal with doing something you'd otherwise hate to do. But, on the balance, I think it's far more often a bad thing, unless you are very good at controlling it.
You're splitting hairs. The hypothetical killing would not have happened without the anger. What you say about anger is true of any human emotion-even love-it can be damaging if it is not controlled and understood by the person feeling it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, basically, we've tried intolerance, and it's really, really nasty. Inquisition nasty. Crusades nasty. Thirty Years' War nasty. The last one is the clincher, really : What happens when you have a large population, about 50% of which has beliefs that the other 50% can by no means tolerate? You get a one-third drop in numbers over the whole of Germany, and complete depopulation of some districts, is what.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Need to? No. But I think there is often a good reason to do it anyway, for your own sake, even if not for the sake of others.
I'm not sure you caught my meaning: if you like something, you're not tolerating it - at least not in the common usage of the word. You're liking it.
It's only when we dislike something, or are offended by something, that tolerance becomes necessary. And tolerating does not mean that you are no longer offended by or suddenly like something.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's only when we dislike something, or are offended by something, that tolerance becomes necessary. And tolerating does not mean that you are no longer offended by or suddenly like something.
Disliking is different from being offended. I dislike the idea of SUVs using all that gas, but I'm not offended when I see one one the road. Disliking is more of an attitude you hold towards something. Taking offense is a response you have to it, a reaction.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
