IMHO, the definition of “tolerance” has been significantly distorted over the years. “Tolerance” should mean putting up with something that one dislikes.
If someone likes LGBT people or people of a different religion, then one is not “tolerating” them by promoting gay marriage, Islam, etc. any more than someone who likes strawberry ice cream has to tolerate strawberry ice cream. It takes no tolerance to abide with something or someone one likes.
“Tolerance” would be something like: “I do not like Muslims, in fact, they rather scare or alarm me, but I will not interfere with their mosque-building project in my neighborhood nor will I prohibit my Muslim employees from wearing hijabs to work or praying while in the workplace.”
ISTM that we have now gotten to a point where on the one hand, people claim they are “tolerant” when they have nothing to be tolerant of - you don’t need to “tolerate” gays or Muslims if you like them and enjoy their presence - and also people are being called “intolerant” for having anti-gay or anti-Muslim sentiment deep down in their hearts even if in their outward behavior they are exhibiting tolerance. I would argue, in fact, that someone who deep down, loathes people of different backgrounds or behaviors, but outwardly, still has the self-control to show outward tolerance, is in fact the very epitome of tolerance.
I also think tolerance is far overrated. That is, I think the goal of a tolerant society is a very poor substitute for an accepting society. Being merely tolerated is not conducive to much of anything.
Well, first off, if someone “likes” somebody simply because they are gay or Muslim, they are an idiot.
I believe “tolerance” in the context given in the OP, simply means accepting people whose lifestyle (and world view to an extent) is different from your own.
Uh, I think people who are fine with, say, homosexuals are asking the people who are not okay with homosexuals to be tolerant of homosexuals.
As I read the OP, one might conclude that people who are fine with homosexuals are just urging others who are fine with homosexuals to be tolerant of homosexuals. I think the OP is grossly misinformed on who is being urged to be tolerant.
Before offering my opinions, I’d like to know if this is really a thing or not. It certainly could be, if formerly-private opinions go viral until they are perceived to have the weight of a deliberate broadcast designed to stoke hatred, but I don’t remember seeing any examples of this being called “intolerance” rather than hatred or bigotry.
I agree that having no associations, postitive or negative, about a particular group, is not tolerance. It’s nothing at all, really.
My guess is it’s the urging of a “live and let live” attitude, regardless of your personal thoughts. And probably not using the n word, when you otherwise think you could “get away with it”.
So, actively promoting hatred of a certain group while anonymous on the internet, even if you give them a fake smile and don’t fire them IRL, would not be “tolerance.”
Accepting someone and tolerating someone are different things. If I tolerate the guy across the hall, it means I don’t harass him or try to get him kicked out. Accepting him involves more - basically that I actually think he is OK as he is, and I wouldn’t want to kick him out even if there was a secret way to do that.
I’m confused by this one. If there’s someone who deep down hates gays or Muslims or whatever, but outwardly never treats them differently or denigrates them… how does anyone know to call them “intolerant?”
I’m not unsympathetic to this view but at some point we have to accept the the same word has different connotations and denotations in different contexts.
If I say, “you have to tolerate mosquitoes if like going outside in the summer” and then say, “you have to tolerate gays and Muslims if you believe in basic human rights”, I’m using different definitions of the word “tolerance” and in the second case I don’t mean accept grudgingly.
I think you do indeed mean “accept grudgingly” in both cases. Otherwise, you would just say “accept”. People trip over the word “accept”, won’t say “I accept Muslims”, precisely because they don’t.
Not liking their beliefs but grudgingly putting up with them and not raising a stink is certainly tolerance. Tolerance means doing at least that. But it also encompasses more positive reactions as well.
I disagree: tolerance is something that can be enforced by social norms and, in some cases, laws.
You can’t enforce acceptance - and it would be a bad idea to try.
Insisting on tolerance allows people of radically differing backgrounds to exist together without forcing them to adopt basically the same attitudes towards things: it allows people to “agree to disagree”, and get on with their lives; it sets a minimum standard of behavior.
Say I was gay, and I had a traditionally religious Muslim neighbor. We may fundamentally disapprove of each other’s lifestyle choices. We will probably never “accept” them, as (for example) most religious Muslim folks regard homosexuality as morally wrong) - but then, we don’t have to. However, society as a whole has a right to insist that we “tolerate” each other.
I don’t agree that it does - I think you’re using the word to mean something that it doesn’t. Or at least something that it could include but isn’t necessarily saying. “Tolerance” and “tolerate” are wide open to being used as weasel words when you admit this sense. Not that YOU’re weaseling, because you’re clearly not - but it’s as if you described Chernobyl as “a fire”. Not false, but omitting important information.
I feel weird about transsexuals and homosexuals. But I tolerated them for a long time.
Now in days, I actually like the fact it makes me feel weird because it pisses people I don’t like off. So technically I no longer tolerate transexuals and homosexuals.
Acceptance. It means you don’t just put up with [something or someone], but that you regard [it or them] positively and with at least some form of understanding.
What’s wrong with it? Other than it puts people on the spot and causes thinking, which is kind of the point.