We hear many people say they are tolerant and they preach tolerance. The people that you hear this from are normally on the left side of the aisle and talk about how everybody needs to be tolerant of everything, but do they really mean it, do they even understand what that means, is it even possible, or is it just some broad virtue signal? I would actually say that for almost all it is just a broad virtue signal that they don’t even realize the implications of the statement.
What does being tolerant or tolerance mean?
Straight from the first two definitions from the internet here are the definitions we get for tolerance and tolerate when talking in this context.
Tolerance- the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Seems pretty easy to understand and seems like something that could be a good thing in practice and sounds like something that could be virtuous, but is it really? I would argue that full 100% tolerance is not only not virtuous but is actually extremely bad and shows you have no moral compass at all.
Do the people preaching tolerance even use it correctly?
There are many times I have heard people spouting tolerance, but they are using it as more of the word affirmation. If you do not say this lifestyle is good or you don’t congratulate them on the lifestyle then you are not tolerant. Many people try to twist or change definitions of words and this is one that it happens to all of the time. In no way should the idea of tolerance be defined as affirmation and it even says that in the definition as it tells you it is not necessarily something you like or agree with. When someone uses it in this nonsensical way I would argue that there is no logical thought to be had, they are virtue signaling, and there is likely no common ground to be had.
Do the people preaching tolerance actually understand the implications of it?
This is the place that I would say those who honestly believe that being totally tolerant is a virtue don’t understand. At this point we are using the real definition and no the nonsensical affirmation type definition. If we were to practice full 100% tolerance like we are told to do what would that mean? First off we have those things we don’t like. I really don’t like soccer, but I tolerate it. I am not going to stop a soccer game, I am not going to force someone to not play it or something of that sort. Yay for me I am tolerant towards soccer even though I don’t like it. What else might I be tolerant of that I really don’t like? There are tons of things I would say most people on all spectrums of political thought are tolerant of and it may be a good thing so we don’t have all out war about every single thing we don’t like or agree with.
But what is the implication of tolerance when we take it to it’s logical conclusion? Just think about all the things that would mean we should actually tolerate. I can name tons I wouldn’t tolerate nor should others. Let’s just name a few murder, rape, abusing children, slavery, pedophilia(unless you are part of Hollywood) and many many other things. Are these things we should tolerate? If not then how can you call yourself totally tolerant? Who is to decide the things to be left out from the word tolerate.
Do the people preaching tolerance actually abide by this supposed virtue?
This a giant resounding no! First things first by the definition if you are not tolerant of intolerant people can you even say you are 100% tolerant? Sorry for the tongue twisting mind bender, but it is true. I actually compare the tolerance movement also to the idea of moral relativity that these people often say they hold as well but do not. If people believed in full tolerance or moral relativism then they would not say that racism, sexism, Trump, intolerance, KKK are wrong and bad. How can you want these things to be gone and not allowed, but you still want to call yourself tolerant? What this means to these people is that what they believe is ok and this is what people should be tolerant of. If it is something they deem bad then there is no need for tolerance. This is totally illogical to their argument of tolerance and makes no sense at all.
Is total tolerance even possible?
Impossible? I don’t know. Almost impossible, I would say yes. I would consider someone who is tolerant to all actions and practices as someone who is probably a psychopath. Wow that’s a harsh one isn’t it? Why I say this is that if you are tolerant of every single thing then you probably have zero moral compass at all. Even murderers who have a low moral compass probably have stuff they don’t tolerate. There should be things that are so bad that we don’t tolerate them. I would be interested in someone to explain to me how tolerating rape is virtuous, I would actually say the opposite.
So, there are things we probably should tolerate, just to keep some peace. Then there are those things that I would bet that even a person who disagrees with me most on morals would probably agree is not something we should tolerate.
Don’t let these people use this nonsense to make you look bad and don’t be scared of someone calling you this name as they likely don’t live by it anyway.