NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.

So have I gone PC mad or do I have a point?

Your views could be very interesting

Sometimes you have to settle for second best for a while before you can go forward. Patience is the true virtue of liberalism.

No, it's true. You tolerate things that are generally seen as unpleasant/offensive to the majority of a culture but should not be banned or restricted. When something is accepted, it is seen as valid as any other aspect of the culture and due the same respect as those aspects.

A racist person can be tolerant of other races while still not accepting them as equals.

Sometimes you have to settle for second best for a while before you can go forward.

maybe, but shouldn't we be looking to promote the message of learning from everyones differences than tolerating their abnormalites?

maybe, but shouldn't we be looking to promote the message of learning from everyones differences than tolerating their abnormalites?

We are not?

maybe, but shouldn't we be looking to promote the message of learning from everyones differences than tolerating their abnormalites?
First one, then the other.
Before people haven't learned to not bash other people, there is little chance that they will learn anything from each other.

maybe I'm asking too much of people to shake off stereotypes to actually see real people. I don't think there is a person who can naturally hate another and to shed that is quite a thing to do when you have a belief.

Your views could be very interesting

^^ this makes you PC mad, yes.

apart from that, vetalia's right as to the difference of acceptance and tolerance.
and while tolerance is most certainly not dirty, acceptance is preferable.

but you cannot, and shall not, call for universal acceptance.
tolerance is needed for society to carry on as such, it is inherent to respecting each other's rights.
acceptance is a personal thing, it's about teh very things you feel and think. no one is to mandate about that.
i demand tolerance, but mandate my right not to accept.

We are not?

maybe but is it actually having an effect? and if it isn't then we should look at our own conceptions of what tolerance and acceptence is and more importantly the difference between the 2

^^ this makes you PC mad, yes.

The fact that I want to hear other views makes me pc mad?

apart from that, vetalia's right as to the difference of acceptance and tolerance.
and while tolerance is most certainly not dirty, acceptance is preferable.

but you cannot, and shall not, call for universal acceptance.
tolerance is needed for society to carry on as such, it is inherent to respecting each other's rights.
acceptance is a personal thing, it's about teh very things you feel and think. no one is to mandate about that.
i demand tolerance, but mandate my right not to accept.#

I'm not "calling" for acceptance as such I'm just saying that accaptence should be seen and encouraged as the more favourable option rather than acceptance. I would not want enforced acceptance but volunteered acceptance.

My main reason for starting ths thread is to see if other people see a big difference between the 2

The fact that I want to hear other views makes me pc mad?

nah. it was the wording. afaik PC is not so much about content but about wording, no?

I'm not "calling" for acceptance as such I'm just saying that accaptence should be seen and encouraged as the more favourable option rather than acceptance [were you trying to say tolerance here?]. I would not want enforced acceptance but volunteered acceptance.

alright, we're on the same page then.

My main reason for starting ths thread is to see if other people see a big difference between the 2

either it was my bad for not picking it up (please excuse me, it's rather damn late or maybe already rather damn early around here) or you did not make that come across in your first post.

alright, we're on the same page then.

cool :)



either it was my bad for not picking it up (please excuse me, it's rather damn late or maybe already rather damn early around here) or you did not make that come across in your first post.

Call it a joint effort? ;) Its way late for me but i don't sleep

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.


One of the problems with some forms of "tolerance" is that it prevents people from evaluating whether one position is actually better than another. For example, we have concluded, in most Western societies anyhow, that rascism is "intolerant"--correctly so, I should think!

But we get into muddier waters when speaking of "religious tolerance" as you said. Is one religious or philosophical system better than another? Why or why not, and who says? For myself, I believe that I ACCEPT people as they are, because we all have our own gifts, stories and problems. I tend to "accept" ideas that I think have equal value to my own, but there are other IDEAS that I will only tolerate because I honestly believe that the other position has weak evidence or will harm people who believe it and act according to it.

Does that make sense? ;)

Peace.

To me, the difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance" is that "acceptance" implies that I approve of something, at least to some extent. Whereas "tolerance" doesn't imply this - maybe I think it's OK, maybe I dislike it but am putting up with it, maybe I just don't care.

For example, I am politically tolerant because, while I dislike many people's political views, I don't think they should be banned, so I must put up with them. I am also tolerant of different sexual orientations, because I really don't give a damn about anyone else's sex life as long as they don't try to involve me in it.

One of the problems with some forms of "tolerance" is that it prevents people from evaluating whether one position is actually better than another. For example, we have concluded, in most Western societies anyhow, that rascism is "intolerant"--correctly so, I should think!

But we get into muddier waters when speaking of "religious tolerance" as you said. Is one religious or philosophical system better than another? Why or why not, and who says? For myself, I believe that I ACCEPT people as they are, because we all have our own gifts, stories and problems. I tend to "accept" ideas that I think have equal value to my own, but there are other IDEAS that I will only tolerate because I honestly believe that the other position has weak evidence or will harm people who believe it and act according to it.

Does that make sense? ;)

Peace.

On religious tolerance I can safely say that we are on the same page.

peace back at ya

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.

So have I gone PC mad or do I have a point?

Your views could be very interesting
Acceptance is not the equivalent of tolerance. To tolerate something is as you said, but to accept something would be to respect and accept as equal to to your own perceptions. I'd whip out the Thomas Paine quote at this point, but I do that too often when it comes to discussing tolerance. With tolerance, one behaves as though they have the authority to allow people to think differently rather than it being an inalienable right of the individual.

Tolerance is about people minding their own business, while acceptance is about respect. I would rather have the later, as many problems both personal and societal stem from a lack of respect for people and their differences, but there are many situations where I would be happy merely to recieve the former.

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.

So have I gone PC mad or do I have a point?

Your views could be very interesting
....the mad one, just bear with them in understanding how they are using the word, when someone says 'tolerance' lots of baggage comes with that, and the clearest communication is only achieved when you try to accept it on the terms of he who said it

Sometimes you have to settle for second best for a while before you can go forward. Patience is the true virtue of liberalism.

Liberalism HAS no virtue. Niether does conservatism for that matter. Self-centered free thought is the only way to go. It may not have any virtues either, but at least it doesn't pretend to.

Liberalism HAS no virtue. Niehteer does conservatism for that matter. Self-centered free thought is the only way to go. It may not have any virtues either, but at least it doesn't pretend to.
This is off topic, but what people pretend to be has so much to do with how the world is. You are denying socialization in favor of what you view as the core of human nature. Everything may very well stem from this, but its effects are causes in and of themselves. Everything is details, and nothing can be reduced to a single concept.

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.

So have I gone PC mad or do I have a point?

Your views could be very interesting

Yes and no. Tolerance is a form of behaviour, while acceptance is an emotional issue.

You can get people to be tolerant and to behave politely, that is simply a form of social interaction, something that will benefit everybody for the sake of getting along.

It becomes a different matter altogether were you to demand acceptance of people or views they don't agree with. You would in fact be intruding on their personality, on their own beliefs and on their emotional being.
And accepting everything leaves little room for criticism, and therefore little room for developement and growth.

Liberalism HAS no virtue....Self-centered free thought is the only way to go.
Being from Sweden, I'm pretty sure Fass meant the proper (ie not US) definition of Liberalism, thus making those two things one and the same.

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.

So have I gone PC mad or do I have a point?

Your views could be very interesting

I think you have a point... tolerating people you don't like is probably a good idea, but accepting them is so much better. They're two completely different words to be used in different situations...

Being from Sweden, I'm pretty sure Fass meant the proper (ie not US) definition of Liberalism, thus making those two things one and the same.

Bingo! :)

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.

So have I gone PC mad or do I have a point?
I can "accept" that people have different beliefs, so long as such "acceptance" doesn't imply a degree of acquiesence or complicity. I tend to agree with your interpretation of "tolerance." It implies a certain hauteur that irritates me. :p

I can "accept" that people have different beliefs, so long as such "acceptance" doesn't imply a degree of acquiesence or complicity. I tend to agree with your interpretation of "tolerance." It implies a certain hauteur that irritates me. :p

Yay! It's finally starting to rub off.

Yay! It's finally starting to rub off.
What is??? [ looks suspciously at Fass! ] <_<

Yay! It's finally starting to rub off.

Wow... I'd never have thought I'd see the day when Eut uses a French word... and it's not even a swear word...

:eek:

Wow... I'd never have thought I'd see the day when Eut uses a French word... and it's not even a swear word...

:eek:
Oh, shut up!
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4851/smileytroutsmack3qu.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Oh, shut up!

That's "Ta gueule!" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ta+gueule) in French. Tsk, tsk.

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.

So have I gone PC mad or do I have a point?

Your views could be very interesting
To me, acceptance means just that. I accept 2+2=4, for example. I will never accept rancid old ideas like monotheisms.

Tolerance to me, might be what you describe. Though mostly tolerance - to me - means tolerating ideas, comcepts & people that means nothing to me or that I can't make sense of. I tolerate monotheisms. Their existence is a thorn in my side, but I accept that education is the only way to combat them, so I tolerate them. I also tolerate things like Buddhism. I have nothing against it, I don't know a whole lot about it, and it doesn't interest me in the slightest. I can't accept it, because that would mean I subscribed to it, and I don't mind it - because to do that, I'd have to know something of it that I didn't like, and that's not the case.

maybe, but shouldn't we be looking to promote the message of learning from everyones differences than tolerating their abnormalites?
we cannot force people to accept the differences in others. we can only force tolerate those differences.

however, through tolerance, each Generation takes a step closer towards acceptance.

you can not have one without the other, correct? you could accept another person's views and at the same time you would be tolerating views that are not of your own. so, if you preach acceptence, i guess tolerance is assumed.

This is a general pet hate of mine when people talk about tolerance, especially religious tolerance. For me to tolerate something means to understand and live with something that annoys, insults or is seen as inferior to our own perceptions. For me acceptence is a much better phrase.

So have I gone PC mad or do I have a point?

Your views could be very interesting

You should read A Letter Concerning Toleration (http://jim.com/tolerati.htm) by John Locke