• 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.