It seems that these days there is a great deal of misunderstanding when it comes to what tolerance is. I’m talking about tolerance as it relates to society and how we interact with the people around us. So, what does tolerance and intolerance really mean? How should it be defined?
1. Tolerance is About How You Treat People With Whom You Disagree
Tolerance is not about how you treat people with whom you agree; it’s about how you treat people with whom you disagree. It says: “I disagree with you, but I will tolerate you.” It says: “I disagree with you, but I will respectfully disagree with you.” It says: “I want to have the right to think freely for myself and come to my own conclusions, even if they disagree with your conclusions; therefore, I will give you the same rights.”
If I were to create a definition about what tolerance is, I would define it like this: “Tolerance is giving those around you the freedom to disagree with you, including expressing their disagreeing viewpoints and beliefs, without them fearing some type of punishment or retribution because they disagree with you.”
This would mean that intolerance can be expressed in the opposite way: “Intolerance is NOT allowing others to disagree with you; it is bringing some sort of punishment or retribution on a person, group of people, or organization, because they disagree with you.”
This all makes sense if you think about it. We live in a diverse and pluralistic society, which means that we are going to have all sorts of different and diverse viewpoints from one another. Rarely are we going to agree on a lot of things. We celebrate our diversity, and claim that our different viewpoints and ways of seeing things actually makes us stronger rather than weaker. So, from this standpoint, it’s important to tolerate the people around us that see things differently than us. Right?
2. Tolerance and Support Are Two Very Different Things
Imagine a mother with a young child. At one point in time, the mother says: “I don’t like my child’s behavior today, but I will tolerate it.” At another point in time, maybe after he shared his toys with his brother, or hugged the neighbor girl when she fell and started crying, the mother says: “I really like my child’s behavior! I’m going to encourage and support that behavior because I want to see more of it!”
Is this mother going to support and encourage behavior that she only tolerates? Absolutely not! You don’t encourage or support that with which you disagree. This brings up another understanding:
You merely tolerate that with which you disagree; you encourage and support that with which you agree.
There are a lot of people these days that don’t seem to know what the difference is between these two things. They tell you if you truly tolerate something, then you will support and endorse it, or you are being intolerant. I want you to think about how that doesn’t make sense. It would be like telling the person who believes in gun control that they have to go to the gun rights rally or they’re being intolerant. It would be like telling those that support abortion rights that they have to go to the anti-abortion meeting or they’re being intolerant. Now seriously, this wouldn’t make any sense now, would it? If you disagree with something, you’re not going to go off and support it – you’re merely going to tolerate it.
3. Tolerance is Not Looking at All Viewpoints as Equally Valid as Yours
This particular point is really about two different ways of seeing thing – it’s basically looking at the world through the Either-Or System of Logic vs the Both-And System of Logic. What is the difference between the two systems of logic, you ask?
In the Either-Or System of Logic, held by many conservatives, it is believed that because of the nature of reality, that if one thing is true, anything that contradicts it cannot also be true. If someone within this way of thinking believes one thing to be true, and you hold something else to be true, they are going to consider you wrong. They will respectfully disagree. This is their version of tolerance.
In the Both-And System of Logic, held by many progressive leftists, it is believed that we should look at all points of view and all belief systems as equally valid and true, in order to be inclusive of everyone (The word inclusive gets used an awful lot by these people). They believe that if you look at only one point of view as correct and all others as incorrect that you are in fact being intolerant and bigoted.
So, why is this important? In order to help you understand why this is important, I’m going to present these two ways of thinking to you using a ridiculous example. This example should help you to understand how these two ways of thinking effect society. So here it goes.
A Silly Example
People that look at reality through the lens of the Either-Or System of Logic will say: “The circumference of the earth at the equator is 40,070 kilometers. If the circumference of the earth at the equator is this amount, it cannot be anything else. It cannot be 22,000 kilometers. It cannot be 18,000 kilometers. It cannot be 98,000 kilometers. Any other answer is incorrect. Either it is 40,070 kilometers, or it is not. Either it is so, or it is something else. It cannot be both that distance and something else. Why? Because the nature of truth is such that whatever is true, anything that contradicts it cannot also then be true”
You can readily perceive how someone from this standpoint practices tolerance. They will say: “Look, I believe that 40,070 kilometers is the correct answer for the circumference of the earth at the equator. If you disagree with me, and think that it is something else, you are free to do so, and I will respect and tolerate you, but I am going to disagree with you because I’m convinced that 40,070 kilometers is the correct answer, which means that nothing else is.”
People that look at reality through the lens of the Both-And System of Logic will look at this previous statement and think that it represents intolerance. Now why is this?
Because, if you look at reality through the Both-And System of Logic, you will say: “If you believe that the circumference of the earth at the equator is 18,000 kilometers, or 22,000 kilometers, or 40,070 kilometers, or 98,000 kilometers, or any other numerical value you can think of, it doesn’t matter, because all numerical values are equally valid as the circumference of the earth at the equator. Those numbers just mentioned, and any other number that you can think of, or want it to be, are equally valid. And if you don’t think so, then you’re just being narrow-minded and anti-intellectual!”
Can you imagine – a theist and an atheist, who are friends, and who sometimes have friendly debates about the existence of God. They both know that they cannot both be right – either God exists or He doesn’t. They both see reality through the Either-Or System of Logic. But then, someone who sees reality through the Both-And System of Logic comes up to them and chastises them: “Come on guys! Don’t you know that both of your points of view are equally valid?” Both of these friends look at each other with puzzled looks. Is this person saying that God both exists and doesn’t exist simultaneously? Apparently to this person God is like Schrödinger’s cat. Quantum superposition apparently reigns over reality. And if you don’t agree, then you must be narrow-minded and anti-intellectual! Jeeesh!
But, the dialogue between the two sides doesn’t stop there. Let’s continue with our ridiculous example:
People who utilize the Either-Or System of Logic think in their minds: “I’m sure these people who disagree with me on this subject are reasonable people. I’ll just try to reason with them. Maybe if I give them the reasons for why I think that 40,070 kilometers is the only correct answer for the circumference of the earth at the equator, and why I think all other answers are wrong, maybe they’ll understand and come to agree with me. I just need to show them the proofs. That’s all!”
So they set out to try to win these other people to their side, but to no avail. It doesn’t matter how hard they try, they can’t even get the other side to listen to them. Why not? Because the people who utilize the Both-And System of Logic are thinking in their minds: “Why should I listen to these people? They have the audacity to think that their point of view is superior to all others! They think all other points of view are wrong! How bigoted! There’s no way I’m giving them even a snowball’s chance in hell to explain themselves!”
You’ll often hear these people say, “I’m not going to warrant your comment with a response!” Seriously, this statement sounds soooo NPR-ish.
It doesn’t take long before the people who look at reality through the lens of the Both-And System of Logic start to get really annoyed at the constant attempts of the people who hold to the Either-Or System of Logic and make a formal statement:
“From now on, since we want to be inclusive of everyone, and because the people who believe that the circumference of the earth is only 40,070 kilometers and nothing else are not inclusive of people who believe that other numbers are also just as valid for the circumference of the earth, we will no longer accept 40,070 kilometers as the correct circumference of the earth, because of what it represents, but we will accept any other numerical value. From now on, all numerical values will be considered equally valid except for 40,070 kilometers.”
In other words, people that look at reality through the lens of the Both-And System of Logic reach a point where they will accept every point of view as equally valid except for the one point of view that really is true! Think about this. When society reaches this point, like happened in this ridiculous example, you end of having two factions: one faction believes one thing is true and valid and nothing else is; the other faction believes that all points of view are equally valid except for the one thing that really is true, which they reject on principle because they believe that those that view that only one thing is true are bigoted and acting on a supremacy mentality for thinking so. Those that hold to the Both-And System of Logic are so unyielding in the way they view reality that they actually become intolerant, to the point of bigotry, of people that don’t look at reality the same way as them – that is, they become intolerant of those that hold to the Either-Or System of Logic.
Think about what happens if we don’t stop this nonsense. Their intolerance leads them to start fighting, and working to suppress, those that disagree with their view of reality. Those that disagree with them are forced to fight back in self-defense – if they didn’t none of them would survive unscathed. Before you know it, fighting continues unchecked between the two sides, and society breaks out in chaos. If that doesn’t stop, it will culminate in something so horrific that society will never be the same. No really! I’m serious about this! This is what happens if society doesn’t settle this simple difference in the way reality is viewed. The outcome – hatred and bitterness stay entrenched in society for generations. Nobody wins! When future generations look back, with a clearer mindset, on what happened to lead to the civil war, they will realize how stupid their ancestors were and how easily it could have been avoided.
As you can tell, I’m an adherent of the Either-Or System of Logic. It makes more sense to me than thinking that all points of view are equally valid and true. If you believe something to be true with which I disagree, I’m going to think you’re wrong, but I will do so respectfully. That is how I view tolerance. I really think that those who hold that all points of view are equally valid, for the sake of being inclusive, really need to admit that all points of view cannot all be true. For example, how can there be no God, one God, and millions of gods simultaneously? They cannot all be correct, now can they? We can agree to disagree on that subject and tolerate each other despite the fact that we may disagree with each other.
Hence:
Tolerance is NOT looking at all viewpoints as equally valid.
Holding that all points of view are equally valid actually leads to intolerance and bigotry against those that think only one point of view is correct, which causes you to end up contradicting yourself, even if you are too blind to see that you are doing so.
What We’re Doing Wrong
I’ve been seeing and hearing a lot of things that, from the standpoint of what tolerance really is, don’t make a lot of sense. In fact, these things don’t make any sense at all.
You might hear some people say “You disagree with me! How dare you! That makes you intolerant! I’m going to make sure you get fired from your job, or make you lose your business, or cause you to get arrested and rot in jail because you are intolerant! I’m going to cancel you! I’m going to have you doxed!” When people say things like this, they are practicing the essence of intolerance, but calling it tolerance. They are forgetting that tolerance is really about how you treat people with whom you disagree.
“Hey! You need to stop what you are doing! What you are doing offends me!” Whenever someone makes a statement like this to someone else, they are actually admitting their intolerance towards whomever they are making this statement. If this happens to you, just ignore them. You shouldn’t pander to bigots.
“If you truly tolerate someone who is different than you, then you will support them!” Um…no! Like I said, if you disagree with someone, you’re not going to be supporting them, or whatever viewpoint or belief they have – you’re merely going to tolerate them. I can’t stress this enough. Tolerance is about how you treat those with whom you disagree; you don’t support that which you merely tolerate.
Calling Intolerance by a Different Name in Order to Legitimize It
I’ve been seeing a lot of people, particularly on the political left, who have created new terms, or twisted and convoluted old ones, in order to practice intolerance towards those who disagree with them. It allows them to preach the message of tolerance while simultaneously acting in an intolerant fashion, which they can get away with because they are calling it some other name. Here’s a few of them:
Political Correctness – people will oftentimes demand that the people around them be politically correct, and silence those who aren’t. All this term really means is that if you disagree with them, they will silence you, claiming that you are being politically incorrect. It’s really just a means to practice intolerance towards those with whom they disagree.
Bullying – you know what bullying used to be. When that big dude in junior or senior high school would come up to you, get in your face, say mean things to you, and try to push you around. Today, if you disagree with certain groups that tend to align with the political left, they will get in your face, say mean, hateful things to you, push you around, and tell you that you are being a bully. Really? Come on! They’re bullying you and then have the audacity to claim that you are being the bully merely for disagreeing with them on a subject. In other words, it’s just intolerance by another name.
Hate Speech – it used to be that hate speech was when someone called people they didn’t like hateful and derogatory terms, or would pronounce what I would consider some kind of curse: “I hope you get covered in boils, get eaten by locusts, and die a horrible death!” Yeah, something like that. Today, if you disagree with the political left, you get shouted down, cussed out, get called hateful things, and you are told that you are practicing hate speech merely by being in disagreement with their point of view. In other words, hate speech today is really defined as “disagreeing with the left.” All just another way to practice intolerance by calling it another name.
I know I’m going hard on the political left here. If you are on the left and reading this, please understand that I am bringing this up because when you use these three terms to act in an intolerant manner towards those with whom you disagree, you are actually betraying your own classical values. I’m merely asking you to return to a proper understanding and practicing of your own values, and to reject new perversions to your values which allow you to contradict those values.
Conclusion
Well, I hope you now have a good understanding about what tolerance vs. intolerance is. If you can try to understand that people in a free society should be allowed to think for themselves and respectfully disagree with each other without some sort of punishment or retribution brought on them for their disagreement, then you are helping to move society in the right direction.
