"Tolerance"

[Maynard Keenan]

My definition is: If it doesn't hurt me or someone else, it is none of my business.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I don't subscribe to tolerance. I do my best to try out the "embrace" and "double vision" that Miroslave Volf lined out though. Understanding your enemy is better than tolerating them any day. It means that you are doing your best to move closer to a loving relationship, one in which you will no longer be enemies.

When you are only comitted to toleration you will still view them as enemies forever and there are only a few possible outcomes. The first, and probably the best, is that you will simply remain seperate and enemies. But if that doesn't take place either you destroy them or they destroy you, though not necessarily physically. So you need a move to embrace your enemy, to avoid all of that.

But it does take two to embrace.

 

[seebs]

I have never seen anyone other than reactionary conservatives claim a definition of tolerance, or a practice, that could be mistaken for "accepting and embracing something you don't like", and that in turn only when decrying the practice.

The problem comes in the question of how much a thing you don't like should be put up with. For instance, somewhere, right now, two guys are having sex.

Clearly, it would be intolerant for me to order them hunted down and killed.

But what's tolerant?

Is it intolerant if I ignore them unless I find out about them, then just order them killed, without the "hunting down" part? I'd say it is.

Is it intolerant if I say "please get out of my bed, I want to sleep and this isn't even your house?" I'd say that would be pretty reasonable.

The fuzzy boundary comes primarily in the public arena and in setting policies. Is it intolerant if I say "I don't care what you do, but if one of you is sick, the other can't come to the hospital to visit him?" I think it is.

Is it intolerant if I say "Stop kissing in public, it's disgusting?"

That's right about the center of the debate. I think that's intolerant. But, of course, in so thinking, I'm saying that people should put up with a public display, right near them, of something they don't like.

Why would this be a reasonable standard? Why should people have to be confronted with something they don't like?

The answer, I think, has to do with the concept of "public". Public spaces are open to everyone; they do not provide immunity to offense, and freedom is more important than not-being-offended. Public activities, or resources (such as hospitals), are likewise places that should give preference to allowing people access rather than restricting access.

Being offended is not harm. The basic rule is, "if you are not harming people, it's okay".

The other challenging question is laws against "hate speech". I am personally of the opinion that these laws are harmful and counterproductive, however, there is a rational basis for them. People who openly call for harm to others end up feeling justified in harming others. People who, while carefully not actually calling for harm, talk about how others deserve harm, likewise tend to end up believing they are justified in harming others.

However, laws against such things don't seem to work as well as rebuttal, and I think freedom is more important than not being offended.

 

[HisEagle]

Seebs, I have to disagree.

Why don't they show porno movies in public parks? The movies may not harm anyone, so is it intolerant if people get upset by it?

And what exactly is defined by "public"? If I saw two gay men openly kissing in the parking lot of a restaurant, is that considered a public space? No, it's not. The parking lot is considered private property, even though the public uses it. If the restaurant told gay men they could not kiss in their parking lot, is that being intolerant?

 

[seebs]

Private businesses that are "open to the public" are their own special category.

You have an interesting point about, say, public showing of pornography. Obscenity laws are a special case because they have multiple often-conflicting motivations, ranging from "protecting the children" to "upholding community values".

That said, while I'm not actively trying to get such laws overturned, I'm not about to waste my valuable time taking any action about violations. I am personally unconcerned about people having sex in public places or whatever; it seems silly to me, but it doesn't harm me, so I don't care.

 

[seebs]

When you are only comitted to toleration you will still view them as enemies forever and there are only a few possible outcomes. The first, and probably the best, is that you will simply remain seperate and enemies. But if that doesn't take place either you destroy them or they destroy you, though not necessarily physically. So you need a move to embrace your enemy, to avoid all of that.

I mostly agree with this, but in some cases, we are not talking about enmity. People who like music I don't like are not my enemies; they just like something I don't. It is a good thing to let them listen to it anyway.

I think that, in the rare case where there's a legitimate basis for considering someone an enemy, tolerance is still better than nothing. Still... Enemies should be loved.

I think there's a problem where people think that, to love and accept a person, you must somehow be happy with everything that person does. It isn't so.