What is tolerance?

[Gary Childress]

1. : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina. 2. a. : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

Tolerance was one of the virtues of the European Enlightenment (albeit religious tolerance in most specific cases). After the Enlightenment toleration has been more broadly applied to various non-religious lifestyles and behaviors that are different from one's own. But is tolerance a virtue?

What about intolerant people who are bigoted and prejudiced and perhaps dangerous toward others around them. Are such people as that to be tolerated? And if not, then what? What if they refuse to change their minds and remain intolerant? Should that be tolerated?

Is toleration the same as acceptance? Is toleration itself practiced through enduring hardship from others who are intolerant? How does one practice tolerance toward intolerance?

And perhaps more importantly, is tolerance viable? Or does the first one to eradicate all those s/he does not tolerate become the 'winner take all' in life?

[godelian]

1. : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina. 2. a. : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

Tolerance was one of the virtues of the European Enlightenment (albeit religious tolerance in most specific cases). After the Enlightenment toleration has been more broadly applied to various non-religious lifestyles and behaviors that are different from one's own. But is tolerance a virtue?

What about intolerant people who are bigoted and prejudiced and perhaps dangerous toward others around them. Are such people as that to be tolerated? And if not, then what? What if they refuse to change their minds and remain intolerant? Should that be tolerated?

Is toleration the same as acceptance? Is toleration itself practiced through enduring hardship from others who are intolerant? How does one practice tolerance toward intolerance? And perhaps more importantly, is tolerance viable? Or does the first one to eradicate all those s/he does not tolerate the 'winner take all' in life?

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own, which are in turn essentially depraved. For example, if you are a gender-fluid mostly homosexual transgender drug addict who lives off prostitution by giving sloppy blowjobs in dark back alleys, your views will not just be tolerated, they will even be celebrated. Your views will be deemed refreshingly "sex positive". If, on the other hand, you believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, then you will be branded a retrograde bigot, and your views will not be tolerated, and met with hostility, because promiscuity is deemed a virtue in the West. But then again, sooner or later, the laws of nature will naturally regain the upper hand and reassert themselves with a vengeance.

[mickthinks]

I can’t decipher from that whether you are for or against, god. Won’t you say?

[Gary Childress]

1. : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina. 2. a. : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

Tolerance was one of the virtues of the European Enlightenment (albeit religious tolerance in most specific cases). After the Enlightenment toleration has been more broadly applied to various non-religious lifestyles and behaviors that are different from one's own. But is tolerance a virtue?

What about intolerant people who are bigoted and prejudiced and perhaps dangerous toward others around them. Are such people as that to be tolerated? And if not, then what? What if they refuse to change their minds and remain intolerant? Should that be tolerated?

Is toleration the same as acceptance? Is toleration itself practiced through enduring hardship from others who are intolerant? How does one practice tolerance toward intolerance? And perhaps more importantly, is tolerance viable? Or does the first one to eradicate all those s/he does not tolerate the 'winner take all' in life?

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own, which are in turn essentially depraved. For example, if you are a gender-fluid mostly homosexual transgender drug addict who lives off prostitution by giving sloppy blowjobs in dark back alleys, your views will not just be tolerated, they will even be celebrated. Your views will be deemed refreshingly "sex positive". If, on the other hand, you believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, then you will be branded a retrograde bigot, and your views will not be tolerated, and met with hostility, because promiscuity is deemed a virtue in the West. But then again, sooner or later, the laws of nature will naturally regain the upper hand and reassert themselves with a vengeance.

OK.

[Gary Childress]

I can’t decipher from that whether you are for or against, god. Won’t you say?

I think tolerance is a virtue, however, what does one do with intolerance if one believes in tolerance? Does one tolerate intolerant people or does one not tolerate intolerant people?

[godelian]

Tolerance was one of the virtues of the European Enlightenment (albeit religious tolerance in most specific cases). After the Enlightenment toleration has been more broadly applied to various non-religious lifestyles and behaviors that are different from one's own. But is tolerance a virtue?

What about intolerant people who are bigoted and prejudiced and perhaps dangerous toward others around them. Are such people as that to be tolerated? And if not, then what? What if they refuse to change their minds and remain intolerant? Should that be tolerated?

Is toleration the same as acceptance? Is toleration itself practiced through enduring hardship from others who are intolerant? How does one practice tolerance toward intolerance? And perhaps more importantly, is tolerance viable? Or does the first one to eradicate all those s/he does not tolerate the 'winner take all' in life?

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own, which are in turn essentially depraved. For example, if you are a gender-fluid mostly homosexual transgender drug addict who lives off prostitution by giving sloppy blowjobs in dark back alleys, your views will not just be tolerated, they will even be celebrated. Your views will be deemed refreshingly "sex positive". If, on the other hand, you believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, then you will be branded a retrograde bigot, and your views will not be tolerated, and met with hostility, because promiscuity is deemed a virtue in the West. But then again, sooner or later, the laws of nature will naturally regain the upper hand and reassert themselves with a vengeance.

OK.

What is "European Enlightenment"? Or what has it degenerated into?

Pornstar Mia Khalifa, star performer at pornhub.com, giving a lecture at Oxford University:



She explained how she successfully uses her mouth to make more money.

This is of course very well tolerated, because it is completely in line with "European values". Furthermore, any negative remark about the porn industry was immediately deleted. There was zero tolerance towards bigotry! This "oppressed" woman is a true hero, especially given all the insistent pressing she has had to endure!

[Gary Childress]

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own, which are in turn essentially depraved. For example, if you are a gender-fluid mostly homosexual transgender drug addict who lives off prostitution by giving sloppy blowjobs in dark back alleys, your views will not just be tolerated, they will even be celebrated. Your views will be deemed refreshingly "sex positive". If, on the other hand, you believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, then you will be branded a retrograde bigot, and your views will not be tolerated, and met with hostility, because promiscuity is deemed a virtue in the West. But then again, sooner or later, the laws of nature will naturally regain the upper hand and reassert themselves with a vengeance.

OK.

What is "European Enlightenment"? Or what has it degenerated into?

Pornstar Mia Khalifa, star performer at pornhub.com, giving a lecture at Oxford University:



She explained how she successfully uses her mouth to make more money.

This is of course very well tolerated, because it is completely in line with "European values". Furthermore, any negative remark about the porn industry was immediately deleted. There was zero tolerance towards bigotry! This "oppressed" woman is a true hero, especially given all the insistent pressing she has had to endure!

OK. So she was probably what many would call a victim of human trafficking and now she is giving lectures at Oxford. Should she not be allowed to give lectures at Oxford because she is now 'morally compromised'? Should she be restricted from such lectures for fear that other women will look to her example and perhaps become porn stars also?

[godelian]

OK. So she was probably what many would call a victim of human trafficking

It is always someone else's fault, isn't it? Accountability seems to be some kind of kryptonite nowadays!?

It is not that she thought that renting out the intimate parts of her body to various porn producers, in exchange for an otherwise rather nominal rental fee, was a problem. She happily did it again and again. She undoubtedly also regularly does casual short times, off camera, completely free of charge, if the guy is attractive enough. So, charging, is actually even an improvement. Now she can say that she may be cheap, but at least less cheap than before. In a sense, the porn deals were even progress for her.

Yes, she is an accredited "victim". She cannot do anything wrong, because regardless of what she does, it is always someone else's fault.

[Gary Childress]

OK. So she was probably what many would call a victim of human trafficking

It is always someone else's fault, isn't it? Accountability seems to be some kind of kryptonite nowadays!?

It is not that she thought that renting out the intimate parts of her body to various porn producers, in exchange for an otherwise rather nominal rental fee, was a problem. She happily did it again and again. She undoubtedly also regularly does casual short times, off camera, completely free of charge, if the guy is attractive enough. So, charging, is actually even an improvement. Now she can say that she may be cheap, but at least less cheap than before. In a sense, the porn deals were even progress for her.

Yes, she is an accredited "victim". She cannot do anything wrong, because regardless of what she does, it is always someone else's fault.

Everyone can do wrong.

[Alexiev]

1. : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina. 2. a. : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

As defined in the OP, the meaning of "tolerance" has diverged from its root of "tolerate". I"m not sure why or how this has happened, but it clearly has, because "tolerate" means:

allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:

We can allow the existence of something without "sympathizing: with it. ON this very board, many members refuse to "sympathize" with those whose beliefs differ from their own -- but (I hope) they "tolerate" those beliefs. IN other words, they allow the existence of such silly notions.

Thus much they differ from, say, the Taliban, which just approved the Sharia law of stoning adulterous women to death. Adultery should, perhaps, be contemned (rather than condemned). We need not sympathize with adulterers to "tolerate" them; we need only forbear from stoning them.

Of course here in the West, we don't "tolerate" a great number of behaviors, including murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud (except when practiced by Donald Trump) and running stop signs. All laws are "intolerant" in the old-fashioned way of not "tolerating" certain behaviors.

Exactly what is implied by "indulgence for" is unclear. Perhaps it refers to the meaning of "tolerate" -- we indulge those beliefs and practices by refraining from stoning or imprisoning the practitioners. If, on the other hand, "indulge" means something more akin to "sympathize", then we can take tolerance too far. I don't sympathize with racist, evil, or malicious speech, for example, but, as a proponent of free speech, I "tolerate" it.

[Gary Childress]

1. : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina. 2. a. : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

As defined in the OP, the meaning of "tolerance" has diverged from its root of "tolerate". I"m not sure why or how this has happened, but it clearly has, because "tolerate" means:

allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:

We can allow the existence of something without "sympathizing: with it. ON this very board, many members refuse to "sympathize" with those whose beliefs differ from their own -- but (I hope) they "tolerate" those beliefs. IN other words, they allow the existence of such silly notions.

Thus much they differ from, say, the Taliban, which just approved the Sharia law of stoning adulterous women to death. Adultery should, perhaps, be contemned (rather than condemned). We need not sympathize with adulterers to "tolerate" them; we need only forbear from stoning them.

Of course here in the West, we don't "tolerate" a great number of behaviors, including murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud (except when practiced by Donald Trump) and running stop signs. All laws are "intolerant" in the old-fashioned way of not "tolerating" certain behaviors.

Exactly what is implied by "indulgence for" is unclear. Perhaps it refers to the meaning of "tolerate" -- we indulge those beliefs and practices by refraining from stoning or imprisoning the practitioners. If, on the other hand, "indulge" means something more akin to "sympathize", then we can take tolerance too far. I don't sympathize with racist, evil, or malicious speech, for example, but, as a proponent of free speech, I "tolerate" it.

I believe the definitions might be articulations of a similar gestalt. To tolerate is to endure something or someone one doesn't like or agree with. That's why we use the word "tolerate" both in the sense of "tolerating pain" and "tolerating people". I can see a connection there. Though, I agree, the word "indulge" is a bit of an odd choice of words. I usually think of indulge as in deriving pleasure. Maybe there need to be experts to correct the definition 'experts'?

[promethean75]

Also note that unless one is physically able to eliminate what one has decided to tolerate instead, could the gesture be called 'toleration'.

A slave doesn't 'tolerate' his circumstances, he endures them, is forced to. It is not some tedious little annoying thing that he tolerates and allows to exist becuz he has mercy.

To tolerate means to grant passage to something u could block instead if u wanted. It's a noble trait that only those with some authority can have. Everybody else endures and suffers (even tho they'll say they 'tolerate' their circumstances as if they had any power to change them but decided to keep them the same instead. Suuuure u did).

[commonsense]

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own, which are in turn essentially depraved. For example, if you are a gender-fluid mostly homosexual transgender drug addict who lives off prostitution by giving sloppy blowjobs in dark back alleys, your views will not just be tolerated, they will even be celebrated. Your views will be deemed refreshingly "sex positive". If, on the other hand, you believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, then you will be branded a retrograde bigot, and your views will not be tolerated, and met with hostility, because promiscuity is deemed a virtue in the West. But then again, sooner or later, the laws of nature will naturally regain the upper hand and reassert themselves with a vengeance.

[Immanuel Can]

I can’t decipher from that whether you are for or against, god. Won’t you say?

I think tolerance is a virtue, however, what does one do with intolerance if one believes in tolerance? Does one tolerate intolerant people or does one not tolerate intolerant people?

"Tolerance" comes from "toleo," in Latin. And literally, it comes from a word that means, "to put up," or by extension, "to put up [with]."

A "tolerant" person is one who "puts up with" people who say and do things that he, himself does not agree with. That's very important. To be a "tolerant" person, one has to say, like Voltaire's biographer, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

One does not need any tolerance at all for things one likes. If somebody gives you an ice cream cone, it doesn't call for any tolerance on your part (unless you're lactose intolerant, and it's done to poison you, one might suppose ). Nice things are always accepted, and tax the recipient not at all. But the more you hate or dislike what it is that the other person is saying or doing, the greater tolerance is required in order to endure it.

If you are a "tolerant" person, then, you believe in a very widely-open market of ideas. You believe that everybody has a right to speak, even if you find their speech odious and reprehensible. But if you accept only what you find pleasant, then you're not a tolerant person. You don't need to be. There's nothing to tolerate.

Interestingly, today, it is the Left that is most obviously intolerant. The curtailing of free speech, the rise of political correctness, the de-voicing and de-platforming of the opposition, the suppression of criticisms of the establishment...all are hallmarks of an increasingly vicious intolerance, ironically offered in the name of "inclusion," or "hate-suppression," or "protecting from verbal violence," or some such other alleged virtue. But the willingness to put up with the declarations of "the other side" is the true mark of a tolerant society.

We are increasingly NOT one.

[Gary Childress]

I can’t decipher from that whether you are for or against, god. Won’t you say?

I think tolerance is a virtue, however, what does one do with intolerance if one believes in tolerance? Does one tolerate intolerant people or does one not tolerate intolerant people?

"Tolerance" comes from "toleo," in Latin. And literally, it comes from a word that means, "to put up," or by extension, "to put up [with]."

A "tolerant" person is one who "puts up with" people who say and do things that he, himself does not agree with. That's very important. To be a "tolerant" person, one has to say, like Voltaire's biographer, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

One does not need any tolerance at all for things one likes. If somebody gives you an ice cream cone, it doesn't call for any tolerance on your part (unless you're lactose intolerant, and it's done to poison you, one might suppose ). Nice things are always accepted, and tax the recipient not at all. But the more you hate or dislike what it is that the other person is saying or doing, the greater tolerance is required in order to endure it.

If you are a "tolerant" person, then, you believe in a very widely-open market of ideas. You believe that everybody has a right to speak, even if you find their speech odious and reprehensible. But if you accept only what you find pleasant, then you're not a tolerant person. You don't need to be. There's nothing to tolerate.

Interestingly, today, it is the Left that is most obviously intolerant. The curtailing of free speech, the rise of political correctness, the de-voicing and de-platforming of the opposition, the suppression of criticisms of the establishment...all are hallmarks of an increasingly vicious intolerance, ironically offered in the name of "inclusion," or "hate-suppression," or "protecting from verbal violence," or some such other alleged virtue. But the willingness to put up with the declarations of "the other side" is the true mark of a tolerant society.

We are increasingly NOT one.

Do you tolerate the left, IC? Or are you intolerant of the left? That is the question I'm posing in essence.