What is tolerance?
07.27.2005I've been thinking lately about the concept of tolerance. What it is, how it's demonstrated, what it's worth. Stuff like that.
I like to think of myself as tolerant, a virtue I mostly equate w/ patience. Tolerance, as South Park points out, is equivalent to "putting up with" something. So it's a virtue demonstrated not towards things/people/ideas we enjoy, but towards things/people/ideas we don't. And it's demonstrated through civility, being polite. Yelling at someone who offended you is much like throwing a fit, a childish, boorish, impolite (hence, uncivil) behavior.
And I think there should be a limit to tolerance. I tolerate racists, even if they shoot slurs in my direction. Why? Because I value free speech, free press, and the right to personal conscience. People have a right to be hateful bigots. But. They don't have a right to use their bigotry to infringe on my rights. That's the limit. That's where tolerance ends. I tolerate pornography; I don't tolerate rapists.
People have a right to hate my religious beliefs. They've a right to say all kinds of hateful things about it, even to my face. Heck, they can even play the insipid childish game of blaming me for the sins of other people who supposedly may've shared some of my religious convictions. Why? Because people have the right to be bigots. I can't prevent people from displaying their hate, ignorance, or general stupidity. But. I've a right to be offended, and to express my offendedness. Doing so does not make me intolerant.
For a long time I've been baffled by this. I remember, years ago, sitting across from a student. We had a random conversation about homosexuality, while waiting in the lobby of the Student Affairs office. The student (who was homosexual) was outraged that another student organization, which publicly condemned homosexuality, was being allowed to host a public event. The event, I should add, was on the topic of homosexuality itself.
For the record. I believe in the rights of homosexuals, including rights to marry (if they so choose), to join the military, to raise children (adopted or otherwise), etc. But. I also believe that people who oppose homosexuality (on whatever grounds) have a right to speak, to share their views in the public marketplace of ideas. The student across from me was incensed at my suggestion that the student organization in question had every right to hold their meeting.
The objection? Because they were, as he announced, "offensive".
I may very well, agree. I find many things in the world offensive. And, yes, certainly some things are more "offensive" than others (e.g. murder is more offensive than poor fashion sense). But. Don't people have the right to be offensive? Even to offend me & the values I hold dear?
Is a gay pride parade any less offensive to those who think homosexuality is a sin than their meeting is to homosexuals? I don't know how to "measure" offendedness, but I'm willing to bet the two are in the same ballpark. They each, by their very existence, mutually offend each other. The dilemma for both, of course, is to display their tolerance towards each other.
A student on any university campus should be able to walk across campus w/ a pink triangle or rainbow t-shirt w/o fear or anything more than a bitter stare. The same should hold for a student wearing a cross or Jesus t-shirt.
Tolerance, as I see it, is about learning to live w/ people who disagree w/ you, even who hate you. We can't end racism or other forms of bigotry. We can't legislate hate any more than we can legislate love. All we can do is legislate the demonstrations of such attitudes. I can't make it illegal for you to think about killing; I can only hope it's illegal for you to do it.
Basically, if tolerance only applies to opinions we agree w/ then it's not tolerance. But being friends w/ intolerant people, implies an acceptance of intolerance. And, just like tolerating a loud baby in a restaurant, I can't do anything about it, except walk out.
-----
ADDENDUM: And. For the record. Blaming all members of some group for the crimes (real or imagined) of that group is the most idiotic thing I've ever encountered. Because if I'm supposed to forever hate "white people" for what they did to my non-white ancestors ... well, the list of hatred is long. Let's see. From my mother's side, I'd have to hate the Italians (or, specifically, the Romans), the French (or, specifically, the Normans), and the Norwegians for their invasions of England. As well as the English for their heavy-handed oppression of the colonies in that little ol' war. On my father's side, I'd have to hate the Muslims (or, specifically, the Moors) for the invasion of Spain, as well as the Spaniards themselves for three centuries of colonialism. Then also the Chileans for that other war. I'd have to hate pagans, Catholics (oops, and here I converted), Protestants (oops, I was raised as), and Muslims since all three religions at some point did something bad to some of my ancestors. And that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head! If I really wanted to spend all my time finding people to hate, I could dig deeper into history, I'm sure I could eventually find a reason to hate everyone that ever lived. Christ, was a depressing world that'd be, eh?
Posted by Miguel at 10:29 PM
Comments
Well put! I love the people who say they are so tolerant of others, but flat out say they hate neo-cons just because they are neo-cons. And this can be applied to any group one can think of. I've been offended as a woman, Korean, American, Christian, former republican, teacher, student, among other things. But, such is life and I know I've offended tons of people with my various rants.
This is why I do like Bill Maher so much because he puts it the same way. He even yelled at his audience for not being respectful of Ann Coulter just for her views. And you're right when you can learn to be around people who think oppositely (even vehemently opposite) of you, then you will know true tolerance.
Posted by: Kara at July 28, 2005 12:42 AM
Interesting dialogue. Reminds me of the trouble inherent in "hate crimes".
Also, you wrote:
"I can't make it illegal for you to think about killing; I can only hope it's illegal for you to do it."
>> I assume you also meant to include attempts, aiding and abetting, conspiracy to commit, etc., right?
Posted by: tom at July 28, 2005 12:45 AM
Yes, I think hate crime legislation is S-T-U-P-I-D. Aren't most crimes hate crimes? Is it more morally wrong if the person killed belonged to a "protected group" (as if they were an endangered species of animal or something)? And are we saying, by law, that some group (those protected by hate crime legislation) are somehow inferior & need special protection (like infants or retarded people)? Anyhow ...
As to the other part Tom raised. Yes, I think aiding or conspiring to commit a crime is wrong, too. Certainly aiding (before or after the fact). Conspiring, too. But only if there's a very, very, very credible threat (or ex post facto). In other words, it's OK for me to talk about beating you up after recess. And I can even talk about it w/ my classmates, online, and just before recess. What I can't do, is walk up to you at recess and hit you. Otherwise, we'd have to arrest everyone who ever uttered "I'm gonna kill you, man!" in any context. But, yes, conspiracy to commit a crime should also be legislated against.
Posted by: Miguel ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.centellas.org/miguel/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 28, 2005 01:27 AM
Wise words. Thanks for your sermon.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 28, 2005 01:23 PM
My take is that being tolerant doesn't only mean "putting up with" or "learning to live with", rather it means an action of "acceptance".
By putting up with or just learning to live with one is just forcing oneself to know those (i.e. oppinions) are there and it doesn't necessarily imply acceptance. While by accepting, one knows those oppinions are there and accepts them as just a different way of thinking.
Additionally, this topic makes me ask myself another question I've been pondering.
Is there such a thing as a "bad idea" and should this idea be legislated or outlawed?
Example: nazism in Germany or for that matter Communism in the US (back in the days when it was a forbidden word).
Posted by: Miguel (MABB) at July 29, 2005 04:16 AM
I disagree. Acceptance implies more than tolerance. I tolerate racists as the price of free speech. But I don't accept them or their way of thinking as just an alternative way of seeing things. For example, many people don't accept homosexuality, but are willing to tolerate it. We can't force people to accept something they find distastful; we can only hope they will be tolerant. Likewise we need to tolerate those who don't accept homosexuality but are willing to tolerate it.
Posted by: miguel at July 29, 2005 08:31 AM
I worked on this guy's network for a while. His opinions are way out there indeed, but he does have the right to voice them. I read that he and a local Muslim dude are gonna duke it out on TV soon. Should be entertaining...or disturbing. Ironically, this comes at the same time the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to allow other holy books in courts to put your left hand on.
Posted by: lance at July 29, 2005 10:30 AM