Why do those who insist on tolerance for themselves and their ideas are all too often vehemently intolerant of anyone whose views/ideas are in conflict with theirs?
Because that’s not the case. People ask to be tolerated as people, but are fine with disagreeing with people’s views. People with abhorrent views that are likely not to be tolerated by others think they’re stumbling across some sort of hypocrisy when they note this, but really just being stupid.
Human nature, I’d say. It’s one thing to state your principles, it’s another to hold to them even when you feel threatened or attacked. Most people aren’t perfect all the time.
Of course, you also could find examples of people who preach tolerance but actually have no intention of accepting any viewpoint but their own. I wouldn’t say this is “all too often” the case, though.
Because “tolerance” is politcal shorthand for “racial, sexual, age…anything natural that’s inconsequential to someone’s character tolerance”, and nothing more. It has never referred to tolerance of ideas except in strawman arguments of moronic conservatives who get upset because people are offended by their worldviews.
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but your example comes from a comic strip with a theme of satire.
Do you have any real-life examples?
(Be warned, you’re starting with a logical fallacy and an imaginary example, this is probably going to go a little bumpy for you).
BTW, how would intolerance for ideas or viewpoints manifest itself? If its something we’ve heard before and disagree with, and we choose to thus avoid hearing it again, is that immorally intolerantl? Are there people getting away with physically harming people for ideas they disagree with without punishment?
On second thought, spingears only does drive-by posts. He won’t be back, so there’s no sense in answering.
That, and it was a satire of moral relativism, not the political idea of “tolerance”.
But hey, if you’re an angry conservative, it’s all the same thing, just a bunch of liberal crap. 
My guess is this is one of those situations where those darn hypocritical liberals are being intolerant of someones bigotry, likely against gays. Some conservatives see that as a contradiction, as if to be tolerant one must also accept intolerance.
Because tolerance is not universal. No one is arguing that every action or viewpoint has to be tolerated. The most leftist, liberal, live-and-let-live type is still going to be pretty intolerant of serial killers. And that’s a good thing. Some stuff needs to be intolerated, because it is dangerous, harmful, or simply evil. Racial, sexual, and religious bigotry falls under that umbrella. Being gay does not harm anyone. Being a homophobe does. A moral person should tolerate the former, but not the latter. There is no hypocrisy or contradiction here.
I can tolerate a bigoted viewpoint, but I have trouble when someone’s viewpoint begins to interfere with the freedoms of other consenting adults.
If you have a heart and mind that cannot understand or tolerate the love of two other people for each other and their desire to legalize their union or even to have it recognized as a sacrament – okay. That is who you are or who you choose to be. So be it. That is between you and your God or your moral wisdom.
But the world twirls without you. Why should there be laws just to please you instead of someone who is not you? That doesn’t seem fair.
How about you make choices for yourself (as long as they aren’t deliberately hurtful to someone) and other people will make choices for themselves under the same stipulation. That seems so reasonable.
Am I insisting on tolerance for myself and my ideas when I say that?
What Zoe and Miller said. My tolerance ends when it’s something that harms someone.
“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil”
- Thomas Mann, Magic Mountain
I agree with all three, with the understanding that harm isn’t limited to the physical.
Peace,
mangeorge
It’s a Calvin and Hobbs comic strip. Nothing more. But, it tales a swipe at someone (which side, I’m not quite sure).
Bigots and racists cry Intolerance, whenever someone calls bullshit on them.
The Moral Majority/Religious Right cries Intolerance whenever someone calls bullshit on their attempts to make their agenda the law.
It’s a strawman. It is like saying if you don’t let me force my crap on everyone else, it’s intolerance. Tolerance does not mean coddling or caving in to dictatorial people. Tolerance means I will leave you alone, so long as you leave me alone. It’s a 2 way street. It’s a fallacy. It is putting people on the spot to have to justify their unillingness to accept intolerance. It’s a kind of double speak.
Sometimes you just have to jump up and yell “That’s bullshit”, and damn the politeness.
*If you have a right to respect, that means other people don’t have a right to their own opinions.
- Thomas Sowell
Be not intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.
– John Adams*
Because some things and ideas really are better than others; there is real good in the world, and also real evil. But there are also things that we encounter that are neither good nore evil, but just are. Like the color of one’s skin or one’s gender or sexual orientation. These are neither right nor wrong, but make the planet more interesting in their diversity. This is where tolerance comes in, not the toleration of things and ideas that we know are wrong.