Tolerance, does it require acceptance to be tolerance, what does it mean to you?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Relic just asked me why I tolerate a fairly rabid Trump fan on my Facebook feed.  I also had a Marxist college professor posting there.  I don't edit the opinions of people who post there even if I strenously disagree with them.  I tolerate them.  Tolarance to me does not mean acceptance it does not mean agreement.  I believe in free expression of opinions even those I disagree with them.  

What does tolerance mean to you?  Does it mean you have to accept as valid the opinion offered?  I don't.

[sologdin]

it's a concept with burkean pedigree and is accordingly gross, no?

[rocksniffer]

something i can get behind...i tolerate a fair amount of bullshit but i don't accept it...

i also have some facebook friends that i do not share their opinions but i do not block them everyone must be allowed to speak no matter the bilge they spew...though i will say that having to only read the words vs hearing it spoken aloud might make me different

 

so perhaps i should say i tolerate more herein and on facebook than i might in person

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

Does this article sum up Burke's views about "tolerance"?

http://www.bjutijdschriften.nl/tijdschrift/rechtsfilosofieentheorie/2008/3/renr_2008_038_003_002.pdf

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

From the article I link above:

One might be inclined to doubt, in the light of Burke’s strong defences of the Established Church in the preceding passage, whether it is possible to asso- ciate him with toleration. Nevertheless both in his political practice and in his writings we nd many examples of his strong commitment to the cause of toleration. This ows from his efforts to improve the situation of the Roman-Catholics in Ireland. In his ‘Tract on the Popery Laws’ he defended the abolishment of this discriminatory legislation, which, as a matter of fact, also affected his own family.

Furthermore he was in favour of the extension of the rights of Dissent- ers. This became manifest in the course of his contribution to the debates to grant dissenting preachers and schoolmasters more freedom than they enjoyed under the Toleration Act of 1689, which obliged them to subscribe to the Articles of Faith of the Anglican Church, with some exceptions as to church government and baptism. Burke voted in favour of legislation to lift the obligation for Dissenters to adhere to any of these Articles.

Burke’s main concerns in the eld of toleration were Roman Catholics and Dissenters. He was also in favour, however, of freedom of worship for Jews and Muslims. In a letter written in 1775 he remarked:

‘I would give a full civil protection, in which I include an immunity, from all disturbance of their public, religious worship, and a power of teaching in schools, as well as Temples, to Jews, Mahometans and even Pagans (...).’54

He stood up for the protection of Jews, when he attacked an Admiral for seizing the properties of a Jew in the West-Indies, and held that the British authorities were persecuting a people ‘whom of all others it ought to be the care and the wish of human nations to protect, the Jews, having no xed settlement in any part of the world (...)’.55 In his ‘Re ections’ he referred to the ‘ancient religion’.56 Regrettably, on the other hand, one has to conclude that Burke was not free from anti-Jewish sentiments, as appears from some expressions in the ‘Re ections’.57 It may have been common in his days, but that of course does not justify this sentiment. More discernment could have been expected from a man who was never afraid of disagreeing with major- ity views.

[maarsen]

The price of my tolerance is my laughter.

[karaddin]

Specifically in the narrow context of what you are talking about here, if I think certain ideas are outright harmful and that tolerance of them serves to encourage them, am I not well within my rights to personally censure them in whatever method I deem appropriate? To tolerate a Trump supporter spouting off veiled, or open, racist commentary (and for the love of god no one try play pedantry of 'he says a religion/country, not a race - *everyone* know he's being racist) is to send the message that that commentary is acceptable in your view.  I choose not to have people like that on my friends list.

In a wider context I feel tolerance is something that's been overblown.  From the perspective of tolerating viewpoints I find harmful, you can look to my paragraph above.  From the perspective of a minority who is 'tolerated' or not, being tolerated is bullshit and not good enough.  Being tolerated means you are still disapproved of, the person is just willing to suppress their disapproval and allow you to exist, that's not equality and it's not a healthy state of being and I aim for more than tolerance.

From a drug perspective it means when you need a higher dose to achieve the same outcome

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karaddin,

I believe in freedom of expression.  It bothers me that you take "tolerance" to mean I somehow endorse ideas that I do not.  Does the ACLU endorse the KKK or the Nazi party when they defend their right to free speech?

[karaddin]

If you are a civil liberties advocate the context is rather different to a private individual Scot.  Why on earth would my seeing things differently to you bother you? We see the world through entirely different eyes, it would almost bother me if we didn't haha

As a minority, when I see someone's friend spouting off bigoted stuff that impacts me, and that person doesn't say anything then I cannot help but feel that there is a part of them that agrees with it and it both hurts me and pushes me away from that person.  If they call it out and say that's not OK, then I won't judge them for not cutting off that friendship as they are challenging views and trying to change them, and this in fact did happen recently with another boarder. I still blocked their friends, but I appreciated that they were sticking up for what I see and they clearly agree is right.  Now I'm as white as Terra's daikon, so the racism isn't targeting me, but I can only assume that this has exactly the same impact on people that aren't white as transphobia and homophobia does on me, and I care enough about racial inequality and the friends I have to try ensure that I don't have any unchallenged racist shit sitting on my wall, or coming from my friends.  I have the privilege of being able to ignore that if I can't deal, they do not.

[Dr. Pepper]

Oh geez, really Scot?  You aren't the fucking ACLU.  There's a difference between an org and a private citizen.  The lawyer defending a civil right is different than the private citizen who goes home to his own self-selected social group.  

I feel perfectly free to express my disgust at harmful language.  I don't need to have a racist misogynist in my house in order to prove I support freedom of speech.  I can support the civil right to free speech as well as use my own voice to tell those assholes to shut the fuck up.  

 

[drawkcabi]

I feel tolerance and freedom of expression is more the purview of the government and government institutions to respect. IMHO individuals have every right not to personally tolerate anyone they feel is a negative force on their personal views. Individuals should be able to censor their own arena of input as they see fit. It may not or may not be healthy the way we incorporate this right but it's our right nonetheless.

That being said, I believe I am in my own right tolerant to a good degree, I don't mind people expressing themselves in ways I disagree with around me, to certain, not extreme, extents.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karaddin,

You absolutely have the right to say that.  I don't agree with Dirjj.  I argue with him constantly.  I don't have a duty to silence him, do I?

[sologdin]

scot, thanks for that article.  i can't stand the rhetoric of tolerance.  it's outrageous.  the etymology reveals that the object of toleration is trauma of some sort:

Quote

 

tolerance (n.) 

early 15c., "endurance, fortitude" (in the face of pain, hardship, etc.), from Old French tolerance (14c.), from Latin tolerantia "a bearing, supporting, endurance," from tolerans, present participle of tolerare "to bear, endure, tolerate"

 

that's motherfucking gross, the notion that the exercise of a substantial right is a trauma to be remedied.  FFS.  i don't know the origin of the thesis, but burke lays it out in the reflections as:

Quote

Are the decorations of temples an expenditure less worthy a wise man than ribbons, and laces, and national cockades, and petits maisons, and petit soupers, and all the innumerable fopperies and follies in which opulence sports away the burthen of its superfluity? We tolerate even these; not from love of them, but for fear of worse. We tolerate them, because property and liberty, to a degree, require that toleration.

i don't care at all for the conflation of aesthetics with ethics in these formulations.  it's exactly what benjamin means by fascism's aestheticization of politics.  theoretically the problem here is that the construction of the political opinions of others as something to tolerate is an arrogation of the disposition of those substantial rights, the reduction of a matter of public concern to private, undemocratic decision-making.  it is quite plainly not for me to dispose of the political opinions of a fellow citizen. i can dislike it all i want, but that's irrelevant to the question of the right to expression.

[karaddin]

Scot - You have a duty to either silence him or call him out whenever he says offensive shit if you want me to not draw conclusions based on offensive assertions going unchallenged.  You are of course free to not care about conclusions I may draw. Having people in my life that do that have a significant deleterious effect on my mental health, so in addition to the above justifications, I choose to silence them.  If someone is not a person with whom you have a close personal connection, and is bringing nothing positive into your life, what on earth is the purpose of maintaining them in your life out of a bizarre defence of their 'free speech rights'? If it's a family member, then the decisions are more complex obviously, but an internet friend? All I need is to think you're an asshole, I don't even need justification for that.

ETA: And riffing off Solo's trauma angle, to tolerate a person is to think that that person's impact on you is that of a trauma that you tolerate, which is why I feel being tolerated is utterly insufficient when pursuing equality.

[drawkcabi]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Karaddin,

You absolutely have the right to say that.  I don't agree with Dirjj.  I argue with him constantly.  I don't have a duty to silence him, do I?

You do not have a duty, only a prerogative.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Found this topic strangely timely for me. I had just un-friended someone based on a post he shared.  The person had shared many posts which I disagree but it was one where I just thought that it was enough.  The person I knew a long time ago and was just a Facebook "friend". 

In the end,  I want those who are my friends to post what they want but I can decide if I want to still for then to be my "friend".

[Jo498]

Tolerance used to mean roughly: I disagree with you on essential questions (usually religious) but I refrain from trying to kill you and do not start a civil war. Because this is what usually happened after the reformation until people worked out how to somehow tolerate each other. In any case, the disagreement is strong and remains.

Today tolerance is often used as aequivalent to "acceptance". E.g. toleration of gays would in the old sense have meant something like "don't ask, don't tell", but in the modern sense, "don't ask, don't tell" is seen as an anti-gay stance. Which it is to some extent correct but this is precisely what tolerance used to mean: Don't fire or put in jail for having gay sex/being Lutheran/Trump supporter etc. but do not be accepting either.

I think it is a loss of nuance that we seem to have lost the original concept. Sure, there may be things where we should be accepting not only tolerating, but there are certainly still things where tolerance without acceptance might be called for. If I am accepting something as positive or ethically neutral, I do not have to be tolerant. I have to be tolerant to attitudes or behaviors I (strongly) oppose but think that it is either not my business to regulate them or that it would lead to a worse outcome if I fought/regulated such behavior.

[sologdin]

9 hours ago, karaddin said:

to tolerate a person is to think that that person's impact on you is that of a trauma that you tolerate, which is why I feel being tolerated is utterly insufficient when pursuing equality.

exactly.  change the proposition from 'we need to tolerate silly political opinions' to 'we should tolerate the jews,' and the import is readily apparent: to 'tolerate' another is to construct the other's existence as a priori wrongful and thereby hold the self out as magnanimous.  it's outrageous.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

Interesting.  So, you see tolerance as a form of veiled aggresion?

[The Killer Snark]

Tolerance means accepting others' opinions even if I completely disagree with them and defending their right to have them, unless they explicitly demand violence or the surrendering of one group's human rights. In this regard, Cultural Marxist ideology is counter-tolerant. The only tolerance within society comes not from Communists, but from the very moderate Left to liberal Right.