4 ms·

Tolerance is not a good thing. If you see something which you think isn’t right you should speak up and not just tolerate it. It’s weird that tolerance is conne

Tolerance is not a good thing. If you see something which you think isn’t right you should speak up and not just tolerate it. It’s weird that tolerance is connected with the peaceful coexistence of two groups of people. As if this was the only way. People coexist peacefully because it’s the reasonable thing to do, not because they exercise tolerance.

ksdale 6y ago
Sometimes people coexist peacefully despite thinking the other person is wrong. Sometimes speaking up about things you think are wrong precludes peaceful coexistence, and in those cases, peaceful coexistence is indeed the exercise of tolerance.
- edna314 6y ago
  I think the latter case is not a solution to the problem, but rather a form of procrastination. Instead of trying figure out how to resolve the issues in a peaceful way, you declare peace and hope for the best. Doesn’t work in the long run. Of course you can buy time by declaring peace to figure things out and for that tolerance is useful, but it is certainly not the most important thing that assures peaceful coexistence. Any peace it would bring is too fragile. Reason gives you permanent peace.
googthrowaway42 6y ago
Generally speaking groups of people that disagree so fundamentally on things should have borders between them. Within the borders there are degrees of tolerance. Tolerance can be good and it can be bad. Tolerance is not inherently good and its not inherently bad.
- edna314 6y ago
  > Generally speaking groups of people that disagree so fundamentally on things should have borders between them. I think disagreeing is not the issue here. I can happily disagree with you on a fundamental level and we live side by side peacefully without you tolerating anything I say or me tolerating anything you say. The problem starts once the disagreement is not just about ideas, but about actions. In this case, we have to sit together and figure out a set of rules that govern our actions. I can safely ignore/tolerate your ideas, because you have a mind where your ideas can exist and I have a mind where my ideas can exist. The problem is that we share the same outside world. And there I cannot just ignore what you are doing, because it is part of my world, too. So, I would argue as long tolerance is about ideas it is not harmful, but also not really beneficial and if it is about actions it is automatically harmful, because it means harm to me if I just tolerate your actions without talking with you about potential resolutions.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    In practice, people generally tend to act on their beliefs so the distinction you're drawing is kind of moot. For sure it is possible to argue things from a purely intellectual or academic perspective.
    - edna314 6y ago
      Not entirely, people act according to the law as well. I’m sure there was a situation where you were thinking that a law didn’t make sense, but you acted accordingly anyways. And this law was put in place because two people had a problem with each other which had to be resolved. I’m just arguing we don’t need tolerance, because we have a mechanism in place, called the state, or the law, which resolves issues and not just ignores them, as tolerance does.

ksdale 6y ago

Sometimes people coexist peacefully despite thinking the other person is wrong. Sometimes speaking up about things you think are wrong precludes peaceful coexistence, and in those cases, peaceful coexistence is indeed the exercise of tolerance.

edna314 6y ago
I think the latter case is not a solution to the problem, but rather a form of procrastination. Instead of trying figure out how to resolve the issues in a peaceful way, you declare peace and hope for the best. Doesn’t work in the long run. Of course you can buy time by declaring peace to figure things out and for that tolerance is useful, but it is certainly not the most important thing that assures peaceful coexistence. Any peace it would bring is too fragile. Reason gives you permanent peace.

googthrowaway42 6y ago

Generally speaking groups of people that disagree so fundamentally on things should have borders between them. Within the borders there are degrees of tolerance. Tolerance can be good and it can be bad. Tolerance is not inherently good and its not inherently bad.

edna314 6y ago
> Generally speaking groups of people that disagree so fundamentally on things should have borders between them. I think disagreeing is not the issue here. I can happily disagree with you on a fundamental level and we live side by side peacefully without you tolerating anything I say or me tolerating anything you say. The problem starts once the disagreement is not just about ideas, but about actions. In this case, we have to sit together and figure out a set of rules that govern our actions. I can safely ignore/tolerate your ideas, because you have a mind where your ideas can exist and I have a mind where my ideas can exist. The problem is that we share the same outside world. And there I cannot just ignore what you are doing, because it is part of my world, too. So, I would argue as long tolerance is about ideas it is not harmful, but also not really beneficial and if it is about actions it is automatically harmful, because it means harm to me if I just tolerate your actions without talking with you about potential resolutions.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  In practice, people generally tend to act on their beliefs so the distinction you're drawing is kind of moot. For sure it is possible to argue things from a purely intellectual or academic perspective.
  - edna314 6y ago
    Not entirely, people act according to the law as well. I’m sure there was a situation where you were thinking that a law didn’t make sense, but you acted accordingly anyways. And this law was put in place because two people had a problem with each other which had to be resolved. I’m just arguing we don’t need tolerance, because we have a mechanism in place, called the state, or the law, which resolves issues and not just ignores them, as tolerance does.