Greetings From George: Intolerance Is Now Tolerance!
There is something happening in the world today that caught my attention:
The term tolerance seems to be undergoing significant change and it is quite alarming.
First let's take a look at the definition of tolerance. Merriam Webster states:
Definition of tolerance
- 1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
- 2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
- 3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
- 4a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (such as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure developed a tolerance to painkillers; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factorb : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance (bold emphasis mine)
Looking at events happening in the world today, it seems like the term tolerance has changed its meaning and now is no longer universal, but rather exclusive. I refer specifically to the definition of the term in 2a: 'sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.'
Once tolerance meant leaving ALL others alone, no matter what they did, as long as they did it in the privacy of their homes and didn't initiate force against others. Live and let live, so to speak. But now it seems to mean a different thing altogether. Now the term seems to mean tolerance only for those who are considered to be tolerant.
So, if the Weltanschauung of someone is considered to be intolerant, it does not deserve to be tolerated, it seems. There actually was a real debate about whether it is alright to punch a 'Nazi' in the face and apparently there were two sides to the argument. With the term 'Nazi' nowadays meaning pretty much everybody who is not in agreement with whatever the world agenda is at the time, this is a very troubling development, in my humble opinion.
The new definition of tolerance sounds something like this: Sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from one's own only slightly. All conflicting views are no longer included, only a certain selection, it seems.
I will not stand for this. If tolerance does not include tolerance of conflicting views, and suddenly it is alright to attack people because of what they believe, no matter how ugly their beliefs may be, the term has lost its meaning altogether.
If we don't tolerate conflicting views, we are NOT tolerant, it is actually quite simple.
Tolerance means nothing if it does not include every view imaginable, no matter how much we hate it.
So let me ask you: Do you believe it is alright to physically attack someone holding conflicting views from your own? Let's take a Nazi for example. Is it ok to hit a Nazi in the face because of his views? If so, why and what does that mean for your own tolerance in your opinion?
I for one believe that it is ALWAYS wrong to initiate force, no matter how evil the victim appears to be and how detestable their views seem to me. But maybe I'm just being old-fashioned.
Please comment, I would love to hear what you think!
@originalworks
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @thename to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
To nominate this post for the daily RESTEEM contest, upvote this comment! The user with the most upvotes on their @OriginalWorks comment will win!
For more information, Click Here!
You can't generalize such an argument. Of course it's not okay to physically harm someone JUST because their views are different from yours. In the case of Nazis their views are different and their views involve the violent extermination of other races and promotion of their own. Neo-Nazism is just a different point of view, it's an ideology that aims to spread its message of white supremacy.
So do you tolerate this ideology? Or would you want to restrict their freedom by, let's say, classifying their views as hatespeech?
Their views are hate speech and tolerating hate speech is dangerous.
We will have to disagree on that. I think intolerance is dangerous, not tolerance.
To me the idea that someone (who?) Decided what can be said and what not is dangerous. If the problem of Nazi ideology is that it does not tolerate others, how is not tolerating its proponents doing any good? It actually seems like mimicking their behavior and thus spreading it. Sometimes by fighting the monster we become the monster...
There is one thing about 'hatespeech' you may not have considered: by banning certain views you take away from the public the ability to evaluate all views and arguments. See what I mean? That seems rather patronizing.
who defines hate speech
I just checked the first amendment...didn't see it.
Please enlighten me.
Congratulations @thename! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThe phenomena of which you speak is called hijacking words. It's a common tactic.
(see disruptive, sustainability, and quite a few more)
The novel, 1984, by George Orwell went into some detail about how it is done. George Orwell intended for 1984 to be a cautionary tale, NOT an instruction manual.
Yes. Unfortunately we could not stop us from making it a reality.