The use of "tolerance" vs. "acceptance" above points to an important distinction; to wit, they're not the same thing.
This is problematic because "tolerance" is generally used in political discourse to mean "acceptance". When you see big old banners hanging in towns or schools that say "Tolerance" in a happy rainbow font, they're not talking about "civility to everyone even if you don't like them!" They're promoting "celebration of marginalized cultures or peoples and open-mindedness about things not historically in the mainstream". But, see, that isn't tolerance. That's acceptance (well, of some things).
As people point out above, tolerance, real and literal tolerance, isn't really nice. It isn't really welcoming. But it is the baseline of civil society, of living together with a variety of people. Acceptance is a step beyond that -- and it's something most people aren't actually interested in doing with people too unlike themselves. Maybe that's bad, but it is very human, hence something we have to cope with.
This is perhaps the distinction I was getting at in an earlier comment on a different post when I said "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a tolerant position, if people really mean it when they say it. It's totally tolerant. It's a way of coping with others civilly even if you disagree, or abhor. But it is not at all accepting.
And that's what I'm getting at when I say it's not right to get into other people's minds and change them...I can expect tolerance, because that manifests in particular outward behavior which is the minimum for civil society. But I can't compel acceptance, which is an attitude behind actions. And I don't need to. I don't need other people to like me, to agree with the choices I make, to celebrate my unique cultural differences (whatever, and however few, those might happen to be), unless they want to be good friends. I need people to tolerate me.
Maybe this gives you a way into your problem. Even if people are complete jerks, I ought to behave in certain fundamentally civil ways toward them -- say "please pass the salt" instead of reaching over their plate at table, say "excuse me" if we run into one another, surrender a seat on the bus if they're elderly or pregnant, not torture them if I happen to be their jailer, let them vote, etc. But I don't have to like them, and I don't have to give them any particular right to know my thoughts or feelings or engage in more than superficial conversations with me, unless they've got something else going.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-30 11:24 pm (UTC)This is problematic because "tolerance" is generally used in political discourse to mean "acceptance". When you see big old banners hanging in towns or schools that say "Tolerance" in a happy rainbow font, they're not talking about "civility to everyone even if you don't like them!" They're promoting "celebration of marginalized cultures or peoples and open-mindedness about things not historically in the mainstream". But, see, that isn't tolerance. That's acceptance (well, of some things).
As people point out above, tolerance, real and literal tolerance, isn't really nice. It isn't really welcoming. But it is the baseline of civil society, of living together with a variety of people. Acceptance is a step beyond that -- and it's something most people aren't actually interested in doing with people too unlike themselves. Maybe that's bad, but it is very human, hence something we have to cope with.
This is perhaps the distinction I was getting at in an earlier comment on a different post when I said "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a tolerant position, if people really mean it when they say it. It's totally tolerant. It's a way of coping with others civilly even if you disagree, or abhor. But it is not at all accepting.
And that's what I'm getting at when I say it's not right to get into other people's minds and change them...I can expect tolerance, because that manifests in particular outward behavior which is the minimum for civil society. But I can't compel acceptance, which is an attitude behind actions. And I don't need to. I don't need other people to like me, to agree with the choices I make, to celebrate my unique cultural differences (whatever, and however few, those might happen to be), unless they want to be good friends. I need people to tolerate me.
Maybe this gives you a way into your problem. Even if people are complete jerks, I ought to behave in certain fundamentally civil ways toward them -- say "please pass the salt" instead of reaching over their plate at table, say "excuse me" if we run into one another, surrender a seat on the bus if they're elderly or pregnant, not torture them if I happen to be their jailer, let them vote, etc. But I don't have to like them, and I don't have to give them any particular right to know my thoughts or feelings or engage in more than superficial conversations with me, unless they've got something else going.