Poll: Is "tolerance" a form of forced acceptance?
 

I saw something interesting in today's Fort Lauderdale newspaper. There was an article about the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. They have a comments forum, and predictably it gets pretty heated.

[anyway...]

One of the comments hit me as both pathetic and thought provoking. An individual posted that basically, the notion of "tolerance" was other people forcing him to accept people who are different from him. Now, I didn't have a chance to cross-examine this person to find out what his definition of tolerance is, nor do I understand what he means about the term "forced", but it occurs to me that some people believe that tolerance, by the standard definitions of race, color, creed, national origin, sexuality, gender, and perhaps disability is in fact a bad thing, and that they are "forced" to accept others.

Do you believe that "tolerance" is "forced acceptance", and why or why not?

N-

I see it both ways.

humans are tribal and tend to not like people who are different. Some would argue that it is a higher level of consciousness that gets beyond those base instincts and allows people to accept and even embrace those who are different.

The bottom line is that some people are jerks some of the time, and some people are jerks all of the time.

Usually the people demanding tolerance are the most intolerant......that being of us who disagree with them and our right to do so. PC is gonna kill us.

+1.

I remember from college and grad school . . . if the person's vocabulary was filled with words like "tolerance," "insensitive," and all of those other great PC buzzwords from the 80s and 90s, you could be sure they were the most intolerant, close-minded people in the room.

Yep.

I learned in college when people started talking about "tolerance", they really meant "blind acceptance".

Personally? No.

For a bigot or racist? Yes.

Being tolerant is not being PC. My parents taught me to respect other people up until they prove they don't deserve it.

True enough in the literal sense but the word "tolerance" has been co-opted by the PC crowd. Now it means, just as Legion said, 'Blind acceptance'. It seems to be a major tactic of the PC crowd to seize words and redefine them for their own purpose of disguising the true meaning. I make it my mission to be Un-PC anytime I can....if only to piss them off.

I don't see it as blind acceptance in the PC crowd so much as it is a fear of labelling.

Who feels that being PC is a new label for a political leaning?

By the way, my Black Labs tolerate my cats. If it were not for me they wouldn't blindly accept.

Michael,
I may be missing something but I don't see the PC Mofia as being afraid of labelling...more like coercing the rest of us to comply with what THEY feel is 'more sensitive' and thereby avoiding the truth. In the dog scenario you are using the traditional meaning of the word ;-)

Well yes, the PC Mafia I agree. They are the religious right of the PC crowd, HAHA. If you can say that...:D I'm against all coercion. When its roots are in agenda I bristle.

I think a significant slice of society are honestly trying to relabel to be more respectful. I've no problem with that kind of sensitivity. Overall if a human being is honestly trying to be sensitive to another then it is a show of respect.
I've never been fond of the word "retarded" nor "handicapped". THey have a note of finality that I don't agree with. I'm OK with "challenged" as a quick sample. On the other hand some might call me vertically challenged. Fuch that. I'm 44 and my height is pretty ******* final. I'm short.

For the politically adroit the term "PC" is now being thrown around casually as a wide sweeping political label which I disagree with. Another symptom of intellectual laziness. But, hey! We all need new buzz words to keep things SPICEY!SmileWavy

Good reply.

Oh, just noticed that you are from Santa Cruz...perhaps the most PC place on the planet ...of course I'm ribbing you.

Tolerance means accepting bigots' failings as well.

What do you think about that?

I find that those that preach tolerance are the least tolerant of all. Like gays who label everyone who dares criticize them a homophobe.

The word for that is Hypocrite.

At any rate, yes, "tolerance' is definitely forced acceptance. I think it's BS. I refuse to play along.

Hillarious! And accurate. South Park hits another home run.

here's a nice one
Construction workers in Holland, during hot working day, wearing shorts and t-shirts
received word from one of the project executives that muslim folks living in that area, complained that they were showing to much skin...

the boss took the complaint and said that if the neighborhood folks really had a problem with it, he'de see what could be done about it

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/4013865/_Moslims_klagen_over_korte_broek__.html?p=23,1

for years those immigrants asked for tolerance
yet now they turn out to be intolerant


if i had been the foreman on that site, i would have ordered the crew to loose the t-shirt (and keep the shorts, there's limits that even i would deem to much :D )

Weren't you telling me about how Sweden had the muslims in check?

you must be mistaken,
i've never even been to Sweden, and seriously can't comment on their policies

I have on the other hand had debates with you about muslim extremist terrorisme and fear of it in the parts where i live eg non-issue in Belgium (it's a couple quite a distance away from Sweden)... which is a completely different story, since A the article above, is from Holland , which is arguably not Belgium, but it is close by, and B is not about muslim extremist terrorisme, but muslim inability to frigging adapt to things that are normal around here

2 different things
being annoyed by something as small as this, does not mean we have terrorisme on our hands...

Pardon me. Holland is even better. I guess it is a non-issue as long as it's not you or yours being terrorized or killed. I was not trying to imply that this was terrorism, just the peace loving muslims demanding you to change to suit their beliefs. Do you think those complainers were "extremists?"

bla bla bla mule...
it's an example of tolerance gone wrong, no more no less

y'all have more problems of idiocracy then we do with "tolerance"
i can list plenty of examples of PC BS going banana's in the US

like the man that got arrested at an airport, for giving lemonade to his kid, that turned out to contain alcohol without him knowing, and his kid was taken away, had his stomach pumped, placed in foster care for days, and what not

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2008/04/mikes_hard_lemonade_breaks_up.html

frankly, i would be more worried about such absurd things then a muslim calling somebody to complain about my asscrack showing while i squat to lay bricks or something like that...traumatizing a kid with a stomach pump procedure, over drinking half of that mikes lemonade... takes a bunch of rule following retards to not notice which is worse for the kid...never mind having a friggin security goon meddling with things that aren't his to meddle with, it's borderline gestapo methods

You got that right!!! You have to accept us, but we don't accept you BS typical liberal hypocrisy:rolleyes:

South Park nailed it!!!!

As I said before. In my eyes, tolerance & respect go hand in hand until the man no longer deserves my respect. A bigot does not receive my respect therefore no tolerance. He is then summarily ignored, not tolerated unless I want to use him as the tool that he is. Then he is laughingly tolerated.

A bigot makes the choice to be a bigot. Taught and learned. It is not something inherit. I don't consider it a failing. Tolerance does not mean accepting a bigot's failings. IF one wants to accept that kind of behavior then they are no more than an enabler and does nothing towards removing the problem.

We cant say homo, but they can say hetero. We cant say ******, but they can say breeder.

As for the muslims it's even easier. We have to accept any crap they dish out, in the name of their religion. They accept no one else's right to practice their religion at all.

And the left wing imbeciles suck this stuff up!

-I've already said why I started this thread: A poster on the forum of the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel basically stated that he felt that the notion of "tolerance" was forced acceptance. I'll paraphrase: he feels that he is being forced to "accept" people that are different from him.

The operative terms here are "tolerance" and "accept". Before we can go any farther, we need to define these terms.

-Let me tell you about the two neighbors across the street from me. 2909 is a home occupied by a family of four. The parents are 55 or so, and the kids are adopted children from central America. A boy and a girl, 15 and 13 respectively. They are extreme (!) fundamentalist christians. Their children are home-schooled, and the reason, from what I've gained from my neighbors...is that they find the local Catholic schools to be WAY too secular, and have decided to keep their children from that "wayward" environment.

2917? It is owned by two gay men- Justin and Tim. Tim is a pilot for a commuter airline and owns an '87 BMW 635 CSI, and me and him have had beers across openned car hoods in my driveway. I've got a boat-load of cheap [Craftsman] tools, so when he needs to work on his car, and I'm around...he's banging on my door. "What's the name of that guy in England that you know who does MAF's?" he said to me last week, when I told him that I thought his part had gone south. He's a great guy, and I can't believe anyone on here would have a problem with him. But he is a gay man, in the end-

How do the two houses get along? You'd be surprised to find out that when 2909 goes on vacation...these fundamentalist christians ask the two gay guys next door to watch their house.

Thoughts?

N!

As for the guy in the article....Everyone is different. Politically, socially, morally, religiously...the list can go on and on. If he feels he is "forced" to accept others that are different he might as well become a hermit now and spare himself an aneurysm later. If he doesn't want to accept it???? Fine with me. What's he going to do about it? Nothing, unless he is a sociopath in which case he was likely to go off the deep end about something else anyway. Most likely he will endlessly repeat the same mindless rant on some BB as the spittle flies from his lips. He'd probably be happier swallowing a bullit as most likely he is one unhappy douche.

A person who thinks the rest of a society should have to conform to meet their specific list of criteria is one arrogant prick. Likewise I think swallowing a bullit is the best recourse for that individual as well.

If you cannot accept differences in others, you have no business living in a society. Not saying you have to like the differences or agree with them mind you. Being a willing member of a society demands you be tolerant in those situations within the generally accepted mores of that society.

As an example:

I am a hetero man. I don't mind being labelled as a "hetero" or "breeder". Why would I, as long as I was not labelled in a manner meant to demean. It is the intent behind the word and not the use of the word. Granted, some words are created solely to demean. I have Gay friends. They good naturedly call me "the straight one", "Breeder" and such. Likewise, I return the good natured ribbing with "B!tch" if male or "Prick" if female,etc..You get my drift? Anyway, to the root (if you will)....I am not Gay. I will never understand what it feels to be Gay even though I believe I know why my friends are Gay. I could never be sexual with a man, it gives me the Heebie Jeebies just thinking of it and my friends know this. THey could care less! I respect them and I accept them as a member in my society. I don't need to tolerate them. They are my friends.

Not to say I don't tolerate some of their quirks or actions. WHo doesn't at some level? My wife of 17 years tolerates some of my crap. I tolerate some of hers. We still love and respect each other dearly and accept the baggage.

As for your neighbors Normy? I think they "accept" and "respect" the other's right to find the life that makes them happy within the boundries of our society. I don't get the impression that "tolerance" comes into play at all.....They certainly aren't "forced" to have their neighbors watch their home.

Then it's not tolerance.

A bigot makes a choice to be a bigot just like a gay makes a choice to be gay.

You can't tolerate one without the other. I personally tolerate neither.

I don't follow you. Then what's not tolerance? :confused::confused: I also don't understand your third statement either. Are you saying a person is incapable of tolerating someone who is gay without tolerating someone who is a bigot?:confused::confused: Or are you saying everyone must feel the same as you do when you say "I tolerate neither."?

A person born Gay has no more choice than you were born straight.

Did you try being gay and decided it wasn't for you? I certainly didn't. Nor was I taught to be straight. I haven't considered trying on a Gay relationship as a result of my friends influence. If they steer me towards a good single malt then I'm all over that.

That SP episode must have really pissed you off. Could you even watch it?

You mean the link in the thread? No, I didn't even click on it. When it was first posted I was at work and the links don't show up nor would I have been able to link it due to streaming filters in our network security. Aside from that, I wouldn't form an opinion from nor get steamed over a cartoon.

Was it funny? Is it worth looking at now that I'm home?

Does it validate your arguments in some way?

Maybe I could buy the whole collection of episodes and put them in my reference library.:D

You seam to be unable to glean any insight from conversation. Maybe a cartoon is the answer? Security tight there at the institution?

If it worked for you, I'm sure it would work for me then. I'll check it out.

Yes, I'd say it is tight. We also do a great job of creating tight security too. Ask someone about the new system that will replace the current Navy UFO.

Being tolerant is purely voluntary. One chooses to be or not. Mores (and laws) in society change because a majority of people share the same values, e.g. slavery, child labor, 1 man, 1 vote, etc. If you don't share the same values, then you'll have a problem with society's rules, but that's up to the individual to deal with. It's a free country. If it's forced on you, the term tolerance isn't in the equation. Instead, use another term like coerce, force or demand.

Sherwood

911PCars nailed it. Tolerance is supposed to be voluntary. Normy's story is the epitome of tolerance, because the neighbors choose to tolerate each other's ways. No doubt they have their differences, but they obviously choose to look past them. That is real tolerance.

Tolerance, in the mainstream sense, is some group saying "accept us or you are a racist/bigot/etc". BS, FU, that's not tolerance. That's a special interest group trying to shove an agenda down our throats. Something people seem to have forgotten in America, there's no rule that everyone LIKE each other. It's your right to hate whomever you want, no matter how big of a POS that makes you.

Myself, I don't treat people differently because of their race/gender/sexual preference. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I don't treat gay people any differently. It's not my role to judge, because I am by no means perfect. "Do unto others", good one to remember.

If you look at the word tolerance, it really simply means to allow something to occur. No where does it say you have to embrace the action you are tolerating. I can tolerate being in a boring lecture for hours on end, doesn't mean I enjoy it or like the speaker.

Unfortunately in our upside down, PC world tolerance has become synonymous with embracing a behavior. True tolerance would be to allow an action to occur without trying to prevent it. Simply allowing homosexual behavior to occur (since that seems to be the topic du jour) is no longer enough. We have to embrace that behavior or be labeled INtolerant.

A recent example comes to mind. My family recently traveled to Orlando to take the kids to Disneyworld. We chose our dates based simply on our work schedule. We made our reservations at a Disney resort property and booked our flights. About 2 weeks later a friend asked us if we were aware that we would be traveling to Disneyworld during "Gay Days". We had no idea this event was occurring.

The end result was a great trip, I did online research about Gay Days and found their schedule of events. We then simply avoided those areas on those days. Our resort was Shades of Green (which is a military run hotel on campus) so none of the participants were staying there (or at least if they were they weren't open about it).

Here's my concern. First, Disney chose to keep the park open during these times to the public. Gay Days is an unofficial event although it occurs on the same dates every year. Disney does not inform people at all about the event either on their website or anywhere else. Interestingly there is an evangelical Christian event as well at Disneyworld...strangely they choose to close the park and treat it as a private event.

I spoke with some folks who were staying at the Polynesian resort. They said that they walked into the resort with their kids to find a lobby full of flamingly gay men, many of them making out on the lobby furniture. Many were simply in their underwear. These men were not removed from the premises or asked to stop. I suspect the staff were afraid of being INTOLERANT.

Of course this group is probably a minority at Gay Days. We did run into several groups of men who were there for the event and they were all respectful and appropriate. Unfortunately there is the percentage that feels it is their duty to be as shocking as possible in order to encourage your TOLERANCE.

Why did you feel the need to avoid those areas?

It is quite possible that the Christian event rented the whole park for their private use. I see no problems with that. Could be any number of reasons other than assuming Disney had some agenda. Aren't they pretty conservative though? Well, except for the recent trend of exploiting young kids and spitting out the remains when they are no longer viable.

Do you expect Disney to put out some Gay Days warning for an unofficial event? I guess they could give individual days a MPAA rating or a Surgeon Generals Warning or something. Are you pissed at Disney about it or dissapointed???:confused: Why would they choose to loose all of that revenue? Who would they be appeasing with that kind of action?

Unfortunately when going to parks like this you are always going to run into shocking people. Most of the time it is punk teenagers. I've never encountered packs of rogue gays. I have had the occasional drunk queen try to pick me up at Church St Station in the city after a night of clubbing.. You know its probably safer to just stay home or maybe go to Branson instead.

Are you asking if we can tolerate homosexul behaivior?

If so, the answer is NO! I'll never be OK with it. It will ALWAYS remain wrong.

It's absolutely a chosen behaivior.
If someone has a leaning towards the conduct, nobody is forcing them to engage.


KT

This is why I WON'T go there, the groups made WDW take down warning signs, and then there was the year that my exes son, who when in 5th grade, had a Safety Patrol field trip to Disney, planned well in advanced, well it was during the fag fest, and no one told the school before these kids got there and got to see these flamers walking around in ass-less chaps, french kissing on the streets & taunting the teachers when they tried direct the kids away from thew lewd behavior. Funny, any other time, if a straight couple acted that way, they would have been kicked out:mad:

BTW, the South Park is worth seeing:D

The South Park would make him puke! Even if the militant homos didn't!

I think the guy who made the distinction between tolerance and acceptance has it right. Tolerance is my sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own. I do not accept them or agree with them, but I believe (also) in freedom of choice, hence I will take no action other than perhaps a spirited debate if the other party wishes to participate in proving that their belief is wrong.

Acceptance are beliefs or behaviour that I generally approve of and support and promote.

Coming to the gay marriage question, I really do not care what particular orifice is used by any person in the privacy of their own bedroom, fill your boots or whatever. Not my problem, while I have limits as to what I will accept, I have much broader limits as to what I will tolerate in others. Just leave the kids out of it, if you are two consenting adults and not in my living room, do what you want.

In terms of marriage, I accept heterosexual marriages as the only kind of union that I am willing to call marriage. It has long term social history, it fits with my Christian beliefs....it is the only thing that I call marriage, regardless of what anyone else says. It is the only kind celebrated in my church (I am Presbyterian) and if that ever changed, I would leave.

The folks who promote gay marriage are trying to limit my right of choice. They want me to accept a gay union on the same basis as a heterosexual marriage. That will never happen, and I am getting pissed off that they keep on trying.

Call it a union, civil relationship, queeriage...couldn''t care less....I'll even pay more in insurance premiums for the broader range of people covered, but it ain't a marriage.

People keep on wanting the converse of rights....drives me nuts. Freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to listen to you at all. Freedom of belief does not obligate anyone at all to agree with you or support you in your belief. Freedom of association does not obligate anyone to come near you or want to be your friend.

I can disagree with your beliefs, argue with them in any public forum and most certainly in private ones, and run away screaming any time you get near me. Or just quietly ignore you as well. My choice. My freedoms.

And personally, I do not give a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut whether anyone else agrees with me, talks with me or wants to be my friend...

Dennis

+1000