• elbucho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    4 months ago

    I hate the concept of tolerance; it necessarily implies that you have a grievance against that person. If you have no grievances against someone, then it would be absurd to say that you’re tolerating them. Anybody who feels that they have to TOLERATE someone just because they sport a different skin color, sexual orientation, or sexual identity is someone that I have a grievance against.

    TL:DR - Nazi lives don’t matter, and “tolerance” is not a virtue.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t quite agree with the latter part. We all have to live together in a society, meaning we all have to tolerate each other to some extent. Where that ends, however, is when the person we are tolerating is intolerant of other people. They’ve broken that basic social contract at that point.

      Be as racist at home alone as you want (spreading it to your kids is another issue). If you want to dress up like an SS officer and march in front of the mirror, that’s your business.

      You take out the uniform and start goosestepping where I can see it, no. I won’t tolerate that.

      • elbucho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        But that’s the thing, though - living together with other people imposes no particular hardship. It’s when people behave badly that there are issues. For example, your racist person. You might consider it pretty harmless that someone likes to dance to Wagner in their home while wearing an authentic SS uniform so long as they don’t show that part of themselves to others… but people aren’t able to cordon themselves off like that. No matter how compartmentalized you think your personality is, it leaks out around the seams. Mr. Wehraboo there would absolutely behave differently towards black people than he would towards someone who looks like a poster child for the Aryan race, and that’s a fucking problem. I see no good reason why anybody should tolerate him.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          but people aren’t able to cordon themselves off like that. No matter how compartmentalized you think your personality is, it leaks out around the seams.

          Yes and no. My grandfather was never overtly bigoted about anyone that I ever heard, but that didn’t stop him from joining a bunch of splitters who went off and formed their own temple when a lesbian rabbi was brought in. He never said that was why he did it- he just said that the new group practiced the conservative Judaism (not the same as politically conservative) that he grew up with. And I never thought about what that actually meant until really recently because I was just a kid at the time.

          Would I have tolerated any overt bigotry from him as an adult? Absolutely not. But I honestly do not remember a hateful word coming out of that man’s mouth. Even towards my brother’s best friend, who is gay. I know now that he must have had bigoted thoughts about my brother’s friend, but he never showed it once and he welcome that friend into his home.

          I don’t want people like that to exist, but there’s probably always going to be people who have a bigotry against those who are different from them and the best we can do is not tolerate their doing it in public and let them take their ball and go home when they aren’t getting their way.

          • elbucho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            But again, even in your example, you’re demonstrating my point that “tolerating” someone means that there’s a grievance. Mainly, my original comment was just expressing my frustration that people say things like “the tolerant left”, as in “tolerating” people who are gay, etc, is some kind of virtue. It just feels like people equate the concept of tolerance with not being a bigot, when in reality only bigots have to tolerate minority groups because deep down they dislike them because of their sexual orientation or skin color or whatever.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              I don’t disagree with you there. Tolerance is more than not being a bigot. It’s also being able to accept the presence of whoever is around you regardless of who they are unless, as I said, they’re breaking the social contract by being a bigot. That means you don’t do things like tell a stranger who hasn’t bathed in a while that they smell because that’s just rude and it’s also breaking the social contract.

              But the important thing is that no one should tolerate bigotry. Or any other form of intolerance. That’s the paradox of tolerance in my title.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It harkens to the days when politics was a disagreement of “how best to help people”. Now, it’s a disagreement of whether to help people.