Do you mean you secretly don’t like them, or do you mean you try to do something about them (like getting them to leave or getting them to shut up)?
I’m not sure, I certainly wouldn’t mind having a tran or homo friend but if I had sex with one or was fooled by ones appearance I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable about it. I don’t like my human instincts being lied to, and I’m guessing thats how a lot of people who would consider themselves intolerant of them feel.
Something about Obama’s post here makes me wonder if he’s been drinking. It is Friday night, after all.
As to the OP’s question, think about the context for literally almost any time a person actually says “I tolerate” with regard to something. The implication is always that they don’t like it and would rather not have to deal with it. It means exactly the same thing as “put up with.”
Hugely relevant Slatestarcodex namedrop: I can tolerate anything but the outgroup.
To borrow Chesterton’s example, if you think divorce is a-ok, then you don’t get to “forgive” people their divorces, you merely ignore them. Someone who thinks divorce is abhorrent can “forgive” divorce. You can forgive theft, or murder, or tax evasion, or something you find abhorrent. I mean, from a utilitarian point of view, you are still doing the correct action of not giving people grief because they’re a divorcee. You can have all the Utility Points you want. All I’m saying is that if you “forgive” something you don’t care about, you don’t earn any Virtue Points.
(by way of illustration: a billionaire who gives $100 to charity gets as many Utility Points as an impoverished pensioner who donates the same amount, but the latter gets a lot more Virtue Points)
He offers the following definition of “Tolerance”, which I think the OP would appreciate:
If I had to define “tolerance” it would be something like “respect and kindness toward members of an outgroup”.
And the article is about how we are very bad at actually determining what qualifies as outgroups.
I tolerate women wearing turbans or Burkhas. But I don’t accept it, I think the religious outfits are not because some man with a genuine message from the creator of the entire universe told humanity they should be used, but instead as a control mechanism for polygamy. So women in the west voluntarily wearing such devices are declaring their intent to comply with religious bullshit to their own detriment.
That definition makes sense to me as well.
Tolerance = respect and kindness to an out group
Acceptance = placing someone into the in group
Maybe “tolerance” is just a substitute for “what else can you do”?
I mean lets say my liberal neighbor “tolerates” me living nearby because… well… he cant force me to leave?
But then, what if he could? What if he somehow could help to enforce some sort of code requiring only persons who think a certain way can live there?
That (your example of “what if he could”) is exactly how a lot of US neighborhoods used to be kept whites only - enforcement of a code requiring only persons who looked a certain way. That’s intolerance.
My answer to the OP’s title is actually no. But then the first sentence of the OP is incorrect. Tolerance isn’t putting up with things one dislikes. It is not being required to like everything. It is not being requires to agree with everything. It’s accepting that, if it doesn’t harm others, it’s really none of your business.
I don’t dislike gay people. But I still tolerate them. Why? Because I’m not gay. They are doing something I would not like, but they aren’t harming anyone else. So I tolerate them and what they do, even though I wouldn’t like it.
I also reject the idea that tolerance is about outgroups, because outgroups can be people who actually hurt other people. Nazis are an outgroup, but I would never say we should tolerate Nazis or Nazism. To tolerate something means that you don’t even speak out against it. But I would never do that.
I can tolerate people because I don’t think what they are doing is wrong, even if it’s not for me. I can also tolerate things that may be somewhat wrong, but the cost of alienation is higher than the harm it causes.
And there is no point system. Life is not a competition.
I don’t think “tolerance is about out groups” (which makes sense) has to translate into “must tolerate every out group” (what a terrible idea).
Caution: atheist spouting religion, enter at own risk…
The story of “The Good Samaritan” is widely misinterpreted to mean “Do good deeds for each other”. That’s not what it’s about, or at least not mostly. If Jesus told the story today to Christians in the US, it would be called “The Good Muslim”, or “The Good Atheist”. A Christian man is robbed and beaten to within an inch of his life. Another Christian sees him lying there, but this guy is already late for work and doesn’t know if this is a scam, so he keeps going. A pastor comes by a couple of minutes later, and recognizes the victim, who left his church for a different one during a recent disagreement. The pastor figures he can’t get mixed up in this, and moves on. Then comes the Muslim or the atheist, who helps the victim into his car, takes him to the hospital, and gives his credit card number to pay the future hospital bill. Now who is the victim’s true ingroup - those who share his religion, or those who treat him right?
The story makes no sense unless the reader knows that “Samaritans” were a neighbouring group who Jesus himself had been taught to hate because they were heretics. A “good Samaritan” who helps you fix your flat tire may be good, but he’s not a Samaritan unless you blindly hated him up till that moment.
And this is supposed to be the basis of Christianity - “Ingroups are bullshit, except for the Treat Everybody Right ingroup”.
Somebody dropped the ball. Christians can do a pretty good job treating people right when they want to, but the “all other ingroups are bullshit” part gets conveniently forgotten. And yet some guy apparently died trying to prove it.