The definition of tolerance means allowing those you disagree with the right to free speech and their viewpoints. Those who would say no to this question are, ironically, the intolerant. For a good summation of this, see Michael Horner's excellent argument:
"Some people might question this, saying it is intolerant to think only one religion has things right. But this response shows a misunderstanding of what intolerance really is. Intolerance comes from the word 'tolerate.' To tolerate means to allow something, such as a belief, to exist even though we don’t like it or agree with it. Tolerance does not mean never disagreeing with anybody. The word implies disagreement. True tolerance means allowing differing views to coexist without necessarily agreeing with them or claiming that all views are true. Therefore, we can hold that one view is true or better than other views without being intolerant. If we were truly intolerant, we would seek to silence other points of view. But merely engaging in persuasive conversation with someone you disagree with is not intolerance. We show more respect for each other when we take our religious claims seriously than when we clothe them in a patronizing cloak of relativism."
The most intolerant people are those who claim to be tolerant, they claim anyone who disagrees with them is intolerant and should not have the right to free speech.
Boy, what a vicious cycle that would become! By not tolerating someone, you are being intolerant. If we shouldn't tolerate those who don't tolerate, then we should all be intolerant of each other for not being tolerant.
If you want to change people's attitudes, you should demonstrate a better way, not act the same way.
If we did not tolerate groups that expressed extremist beliefs but expressed those beliefs in a peaceful manner, we would be taking a step towards fascism as we would be silencing these groups/individuals because we strongly disagree with their beliefs. As long as these "intolerant" groups/individuals express their views in a way that does not violate the safety and rights of others, they should be allowed to express their beliefs.
If you are intolerant to the intolerant, wouldn't that make you intolerant as well?
50 word minimum sucks. 50 word minimum sucks. 50 word minimum sucks. 50 word minimum sucks.50 word minimum sucks. 50 word minimum sucks. 50 word minimum sucks. 50 word minimum sucks. 50 word minimum sucks. 50 word minimum sucks.
"Tolerate" does not simply mean "leave in peace." People should be allowed to have their own views and to be able to voice them, but no one has the right to make you listen to something you do not want to or to deny you the right to combat them verbally. So, yes, we should let the intolerant continue to exist, but make it harder for intolerance to continue by fight it with reason.
A tricky slope, we have the option of being intolerant ourselves by decrying them or being overly tolerant and allowing them to run roughshod. However, there is a strong difference between showing tolerance (nodding politely, calmly stating you do not agree and excusing yourself from a conversation, for instance) and just turning a blind eye. Every one is free to think and believe as they choose, it is when they try to push their beliefs on others or attack someone that it moves out of the realm of tolerance into the realm of persecution.
Think with me: if you - a tolerant - doesn't tolerate someone you're being intolerant! If the person you are being intolerant with is intolerant as well or not, that shouldn't influence your behaviour. I believe sustained morals are the principle of being a successful person, you can't be loose on that :)
"If you tolerate the opinions of those you disagree with, the chances are greater that they will tolerate your opinions. And if everyone held to the principle of tolerance, then we wouldn't even need to worry about chances being greater or less: we would know right off the bat that others will indeed tolerate our opinions. In this climate of tolerance, there would be a lower risk of conflict, and instead of expending our energy fighting each other, we could put it to more productive ends." Michael Mendis in Big Think
A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own.
True tolerance is tolerant of all things including intolerance. If one is not tolerant and permissive to tolerance, then they are not truly tolerant. Tolerance may not agree or believe in the practices of another, but is permissive to those beliefs and practices.
Tolerating intolerance only allows the "bully" a reward of no consequence. There is a fallacy that placating an adversary will eventually lead them to understanding your desire for peaceful resolve. Wrong. An adversary determined to get what they wan does not think like you. They are determined and will simply laugh at your tolerance and placation while destroying your way of life.
Anyways, the intolerant (i.E. 65 year old fundamentalist gun toting fist shakers with senility) are the only thing that stands between a global, multicultural competition of ideologies, and a zealot run blurred line of church and state.
Once their votes are off the ballot, we'll actually get some progress done.
It is not true that being intolerant of intolerance implies you are as bad as them. By this logic, the correct action during the holocaust would have been to allow Hitler to continue gassing jews. If somebody says it is okay to kill jews, should we sit back and allow them to spew this ugly rhetoric? I think it is correct to condemn that person.
To achieve a society which respects the basic human rights of all sexes, races, and sexual orientations (plus others may be oppressed), it is important to be intolerant of intolerance. In this case, we are fighting for the right of every human in our society to be treated equally.
With the rise of science and technology and groups of people who now want to understand things it's ludicrous to outright demonize shit that can be argued away with a little bit time and study. If someone ostracizes people based around stupid outdated ideologies that have no basis on fact, they themselves must be ostracized. I don’t particularly like this course of action, but sometimes the only way people can learn is through a little bit of emotional torment.
Sometimes in the act of being tolerant in the face of intolerance we lose the whole purpose of tolerance. It is important to stand up for tolerance in the face of intolerance and not accept others intolerance. "tolerance of intolerance is cowardice" Ayaan Ali one said, and i find this quote to hold a lot of truth
Karl Popper once wrote "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
It may sound counter-intuitive, but we must not tolerate the intolerant. We must stand up against the tyranny of intolerance. We must deman equal rights of all individuals and the right to free speech, for instance. Isn't that what MLK, Voltaire and other great thinkers did? What's at stake for individuals and societies when we allow intolerance to have a voice?
In times of plenty the intolerant have a hard time recruiting followers. They are stuck with mostly fringe elements. Even so, the Tea Party in America has flourished during a relatively bountiful time due to aging people being scared. The Tea Party's sole message is intolerance through scapegoating of the poor and middle class. When times are hard, the intolerant usually become ever powerful. I would like to see organized intolerance punished by law so they have a harder time accumulating power.