Are you a tolerant person?
We all like to think of ourselves as tolerant individuals. According to Webster's Dictionary tolerance is defined as to allow to be or be done without opposition. To me, tolerance is much more, and includes the idea that we accept others as they are, without judging or making an effort to impose ourselves, values or beliefs on them. This, of course does not mean to lie down and play dead, nor does it mean that we are in agreement with someone for his/her ideas or beliefs. We are allowed to speak up at let others know how we feel. But how do we do this? Does it mean that in expressing ourselves, we let others know, with honor and respect that we feel differently about something ourselves in a civil manner, or are we berating, mean-spirited or judgmental in our expression of our own differences?
Many of us, myself included, may believe we are tolerant, but when we search deep without ourselves, we find that we are not. How many of us truly accept others as they are, without judging and condemning them? Do we live and let live, or judge and put down? How often do we find ourselves being unacceptable of others, because they are different from us, in belief, lifestyle, sexual orientation, or even goals, and develop prejudices because of these differences, either at the conscious or unconscious level? Is it not just as much of a sin to be intolerant of others as it is to profess piousness and self-righteousness?
From my very first post, and the mission statement of Women on the Verge of Thinking, I set forth a mission statement of sorts, mainly that we can all let each other know how we feel, but the bottom line, is that we must accept that we will agree to disagree raising provocative subjects on my blog, which is something that interests me, I know that I am going to receive some passionate statements and opinions, which, quite frankly I invite.
Here is the question of the day: How tolerant of a person are you? When you disagree with someone on something, do you let that person know, in a kind, respectful way, or do you disagree by judgment or condemnation (whether conscious or not)? Do you believe it is healthy to be intolerant?
Thank you for your minds.
Many of us, myself included, may believe we are tolerant, but when we search deep without ourselves, we find that we are not. How many of us truly accept others as they are, without judging and condemning them? Do we live and let live, or judge and put down? How often do we find ourselves being unacceptable of others, because they are different from us, in belief, lifestyle, sexual orientation, or even goals, and develop prejudices because of these differences, either at the conscious or unconscious level? Is it not just as much of a sin to be intolerant of others as it is to profess piousness and self-righteousness?
From my very first post, and the mission statement of Women on the Verge of Thinking, I set forth a mission statement of sorts, mainly that we can all let each other know how we feel, but the bottom line, is that we must accept that we will agree to disagree raising provocative subjects on my blog, which is something that interests me, I know that I am going to receive some passionate statements and opinions, which, quite frankly I invite.
Here is the question of the day: How tolerant of a person are you? When you disagree with someone on something, do you let that person know, in a kind, respectful way, or do you disagree by judgment or condemnation (whether conscious or not)? Do you believe it is healthy to be intolerant?
Thank you for your minds.
18 Comments:
Hi B,
I've never liked the word "tolerant" because it suggests that there's something to tolerate. For instance, when people say they are "tolerant" of homosexuals, it implies that homosexuals radiate offensiveness and we all somehow must tolerate it. Or to say one is "tolerant" of Jews or African Americans -- what exactly is there to tolerate??
Semantics aside, I do understand what you're asking. I aim to be tolerant but there are certain domains of social life where I am most decidedly intolerant. I strongly dislike social and religious doctrines whose enactment is hurtful to people (usually women and children) or severely limits their freedoms. I am intolerant of bigoted, inflammatory talk. I'll support the right to SAY it, mind you, I'll just talk back -- loudly -- when I hear it. Or I'll walk away -- something I chose to do after reading the responses to yesterday's post on racism.
I also support people's right to follow whatever religion they wish, but when they use it to justify lynching or bombing people or withholding birth control prescriptions, they have moved beyond exercising their own freedom to severely limiting the freedoms of others -- a big NO-NO in my book.
I think it's very healthy to be intolerant in some domains. For instance, one of the key tasks of adulthood is to learn what our personal boundaries are, to acknowledge that we have the right to those boundaries and don't owe anyone justification, and to refuse to tolerate it when people intentionally overstep those boundaries. By "refuse to tolerate it" I don't mean overstepping others' boundaries in return, I mean stating our own boundaries firmly and removing ourselves from contact with people who repeatedly overstep them. That kind of intolerance is empowering.
I'm not very tolerant of other peoples belief or political ideas. This, I know, is one of my biggest shortcomings.
I could give lip service and say that I'm "working" on being more tolerant, but honestly, how does one "work" to become more tolerant? One thing I have taken to doing is reading blogs of from people whom I don't necessarily agree with. To do so humynizes others for me. However, I just cannot bring myself to read blogs of conserative religionists--they make me too angry, but at least I know where they stand. Moderates are the group of people I have the hardest time with--I never know where they stand and what they're thinking. Moderates are not black or white, they are grey, and grey hurts my brain.
k,
you are a beautiful soul, and I know a tolerant person.
Maybe accepting person would have been a better choice of words, but in light of the conversations from the past few weeks, I felt tolerance was a good word for this discussion.
Frankly, I do not tolerate men or women who verbally and/or physically abuse each other or their children to the point of demeaning them. Especially verbal abuse, it is the silent killer of the ego, and very unhealthy, resulting in long term harm and damage of the ego.
I am happy you are my friend.
Enjoy your day.
Interesting question, B. I think most people would claim to be tolerant but I guess that's because there's no real way to define it. I consider some of the people who posted yesterday to be intolerant of Muslims. They certainly don't see themselves that way, though; or, if they do, they think that they have the right to feel that way based on the actions of a minority.
I absolutely try to be tolerant of everyone, but like every other human on the planet, I sometimes struggle with this. I'm not the most optimistic person in the world, but I still refuse to believe that we as humans are all that different.
To answer your question, when I disagree with someone I try to let them know politely if it's something I feel strongly about. The problem I have is with the Bible-thumpers, who cannot be reasoned with. Okay, well, there's an example of my own intolerance. This is something that I am trying to work on, honestly. But I have a really, really, really hard time respecting anyone who follows to the letter any ancient holy book and refuses to acknowledge that anyone else's interpretation may be just as valid or invalid as their own. (That would go for any of "the big three" -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism.) So perhaps I'm not as tolerant as I thought I was when I started writing this comment!
WW, Nio & Meegan,
Tolerance, to me, does not mean that we have to be in agreement with a person for h/h beliefs or values, but that we are accepting of them, even if we ourselves are not of the same opinion.
Barbara, to be open minded is one thing. To be empty headed is another. You apparently wish to only encourage liberal, extremist views and you (and others in here) are quick to label someone if they don't agree with you. I think it's pitiful. Eventually you'll have no open discussions, and you will find everyone in agreement, because you will have driven off everyone who DIDN'T agree with you.
So NOW who's intolerant???
Hey Barbara,
I participated in the last session, but this seems to be the same as the first. I just finished posting in there to find the bold anonymous statements in here. Respectfully, and with kindness, I would recommend you consider them.
I am trying to post positions that I truly believe, and I feel that they are instantly discarded and picked apart without anyone truly considering them. Perhaps this is just a forum where everyone is honing their 'liberal' skills. I had hoped it would truly encourage debate and viewing all sides of an issue.
Thanks!
-your friend, Saur
Annoy.
You make an interesting point.
Please elaborate. Do you think that being accepting without being in agreement is discouraging others not to speak? I am a bit uncertain what you mean, and if you could give me an example, I would appreciate it.
Everyone is free to post on my blog. My issues of tolerance are human ones, rather than those affixed to any particular political belief or ideology. Agreeing to disagree in a civil way can be done whether you label yourself liberal, conservative, facist or neo-conservative. Do you disagree?
I appreciate the different points of view on this blog. And I feel the need to come to Barbara's defense when Anonymous says that she only wants "liberal, extremist views." That's simply not true. And when people disagree it doesn't mean they are trying to be rude. It just means that they disagree. We can all learn from each other.
I am not all that tolerant. There are some groups that I just can not deal with, and that I wish would take a long walk off a short pier.
Right wing lunatics are at the top of the list. I can deal with political views, but not when they are on the verge of outright facism, or when they mix religion with politics.
The evangelicals, who claim to be on the side of Jesus yet condemn anything and everything that they do not agree 100% with are also on that list. For the most part they are part of the right wing lunatic bunch. Jesus preached love and tolerance, not war and death. Jesus never told people oughtright that they would burn in hell. But do not tell that to an evangelical! They will tell you that you are wrong, that satan has confused you, and so on.
Then there are the things that I will let slide, but I want no part of. Homosexuality falls into this category. I do not really what adult another adult decides to have sex with, but on the other hand I do not want to know about it, hear about it, see any evidence of it, or whatever.
And I do not want to "understand" criminals. I do not want to hear a sob story about how bad childhood was - if you rob a 7-11 you need to go to jail.
Then there are the bad drivers (MY bad driving does not count!!!). If I deem you unable to drive, you should walk or use the bus.
Then there are the dumb people. I am not talking about people born with mental defects, I mean dumb people. People who never leave the county they were born in, yet trash talk other nations. People who have never left Florida, yet say that Las Vegas sucks because people sin and gamble there. People who have never left the USA yet claim that forigen countries like France, Germany, Canada, and the UK are against America just because they happen to know that the president is a moron. Dumb people. I can not stand them.
Other than that, I am tolerant :)
Iguana -- your posts crack me up. I love reading them (even if I don't always agree). Just want to note a small point here -- we are surrounded by 10,000 times more heterosexual imagery than homosexual imagery. It's so ubiquitous that it's become invisible. You do not want homosexuality flaunted in your face. You're lucky because that's so rare. I, in contrast, do not want heterosexuality flaunted in my face. Poor, luckless me! From extreme closeups in cinematic kissing scenes (complete with disgusting smacky noises), to the obligatory wedding ring prop on the finger of the actress selling laundry detergent, to CONSTANT references to intercourse and oral sex in popular music, advertising, literature, yadda yadda yadda, I simply cannot escape it.
Oh -- and I'm not even gay. Just terribly, terribly repressed (Mennonite grandparents). :-)
I can pretty much tolerate anything except intolerance.
Well, no, of course I can't tolerate child abuse, or any kind of abuse of others. SO if a person's religion or politics include the supression of, or abuse of, someone else, then I don't want to tolerate it.
But I believe we must tolerate others' opinions, after asking the question: "does it harm an innocent person?" Generally speaking an OPINION doesn't harm others. However, acting on an opinion can harm.
LOL...In some ways, this post has made me conclude that perhaps I am less tolerant of more things than I thought.
That being said, I think we all have things, ideas and issues which we do not tolerate. I think what is important is how we communicate and relate to other who are different from us, and their ideas. This seems to be my bone of contention. Do we become angry, mean, rude, judgmental, or do we express ourselves respectfully, in a kind and civil matter?
For example, I do not tolerate those who do not accept the exsitance of the State of Israel, and decide to express themselves with suicide bombs. Period. If someone else feels differently, I doubt that I would call that person an asshole, tell them to f*** off, or take it and shove it. I would be respectful, and let them know that I feel otherwise.
And Meegan, thank you for coming to my defense. You are a sweetheart. I wish anoyn. would answer the questions I pose, as I want to know where h/s is coming from and be clear on the points raised.
As I read through Barbara's original post and then the responses, I tried to gauge where I fit into the spectrum of answers. I would suppose that I am fairly tolerant.
Tolerance to me means that I don't automatically discount someone because of a belief they espouse or adamantly cling to. (In agreement with everyone else that this excludes any kind of criminal act or beliefs supporting something of an abusive nature.)
I think sometimes we confuse intolerance with the refusal to condone something. I am quite tolerant of homosexuality -- my husband and I were introduced by a dear friend who is gay, and I am so glad that we were friends back in college so that I could meet DH. I am tolerant of his lifestyle, even though I don't condone it. I never lectured him about it...tried to convert him to a heterosexual life...but neither did I try to set him up on dates! I loved him and appreciated him for who he WAS...not because of what he DID.
Same is true with a very dear friend I have who is Jewish. She knows what I believe, and I know what she believes. We have discussed the obvious disconnect and know that I would be beating my head against a wall to convert her, and same that she will never convince me otherwise, as well. And yet, we are close, dear friends and I know that I could call on her in a heartbeat and that she would move heaven and earth on my behalf to help me out and vice-versa. We haven't robbed ourselves of this precious friendship because we couldn't see beyond a theological difference.
And finally, I used to work with a friend who was a dyed-in-the-wool democrat, and we could not have been on further ends of the spectrum in our political views. But that didn't preclude us from finding 101 other areas in life where we were in sync and could enjoy one another's company.
In all these instances, if I had only looked at the one 'label' that could have been placed on that person that I don't CONDONE, then I would have missed out on the opportunity for special and wonderful relationships with smart, talented, funny, giving, compassionate INDIVIDUALS.
I think that sometimes when we ask that someone be 'tolerant' that we ask for them to accept an entire population in its entirety...the good with the bad. I propose that we accept INDIVIDUALS as they are, and experience their unique good gifts. And that we not take the vices of a few, and then extrapolate their weaknesses or vices and generalize it to the rest of the population who may share just one of the labels that they may share.
I would hope that my shortcomings are not reflective on all Texans, women, Christians, Republicans, mothers, wives, sisters, aunts, nieces, cousins, patients, dog owners, cat owners, home owners, tax payers, college graduates, drivers, writers, swimmers...you get the picture.
Anything I do that is less than perfect could be taken by someone to paint a broad stroke against any of those categories that I fit into...and it would be ridiculous to do so. Perhaps we start with our journey to learn tolerance by looking at people as individuals instead of as an ambassador for any one of the larger groups they represent.
(Gosh, I thought that was going to be a short answer. I guess my two-week break from blogging resulted in a sort of blog flood!)
Whit,
Excellent post, and you are spot on about the distinction between intolerance and refusal to support something. Very intelligent comments, indeed.
So happy you are back among the bloggers.
Thank you for such an insightful post.
Whit and Tan Lucy,
Exactly. Thanks!
As I mentioned in my post last week, you can only be tolerant of something you disagree with. It sounds from all of your posters that they are not tolerant of anything. They don't care about a persons sexuality, so let everyone do what they want. But they can't handle someone with an opinion on the subject.
Winterwheat says "I've never liked the word "tolerant" because it suggests that there's something to tolerate." and also "I strongly dislike social and religious doctrines whose enactment is hurtful to people (usually women and children) or severely limits their freedoms."
What if those women and children are part of a culture that believes this to be a moral way of life? What if the women feel this is the most proper way to live, and they don't need to vote or to appear in public half naked. In Afghanistan you didn't see all the women putting on halter tops as soon as the US came in.
Meegan has a problem with bible thumpers who can't be reasoned with. To me that means if they won't accept her point of view then she won't tolerate them.
Also what does it mean to be tolerant? To still be friends with someone you believe to be morally corrupt? To not throw stones at them ? To accept their opinion as wrong but valid?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home