PDA

View Full Version : Question on Tolerance and Acceptance


Dalcourt
September 3rd, 2016, 11:39 PM
Usually most people will tell you that they are quite tolerant and accept others for what they are.
The reasons for them might be their liberal worldview, or for others their religious believes or ethics etc.

In day to day life however it turns out that tolerance and acceptance are more of a theoretical concept everyone says they heed but they don't really put into practice.
People seem to hate on each other to the point of real aggression just to get their points across instead of letting others have their own point of view. Also instead of tolerating people who are different in whatever ways sometimes the treatment of them seems borderline abusive without people even noticing it.

Of course these above observations are just subjective from things I see in daily life, on the media etc. but I discussed it with others and they came to similar observations.

Why is it so hard for us to put these things into practice? Why don't we admit intolerance when we clearly show it?
Is it good to be accepting and tolerant or do we try to hard to be and shouldn't? I mean should we stand more to our own views and accept hurting others' feeling instead of trying too hard to be tolerant?
But then why is tolerance seen as so important?

It may sound a bit abstract this way but I deliberately didn't put in any examples cuz then we would end up just talking about this one thing instead of seeing the problem comprising different aspects of life.

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 06:04 AM
Yeah I have seen all of that buddy!!! I do think many generally believe that they are accepting, just like how a racist is convinced he is not a racist.

There are some however, on both sides, that enjoy trolling and annoying people who disagree with them :)

ThisBougieLife
September 4th, 2016, 10:15 AM
There is a part of me that thinks "tolerance" is not a natural human quality; that we have to fight against our instincts to be intolerant in order to be "tolerant". To me "tolerance" is the lowest level of acceptance; you can be "tolerant" of homosexuals while still viewing homosexuality as a sin, whereas acceptance would mean you have no problem with homosexuality. I don't think it's asking that much that people be tolerant (i.e. not be abusive and hateful towards someone, as that's really all tolerance is--the absence of outward hatred and abuse toward people), but tolerance is really no good if it's phony.

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 01:10 PM
Usually most people will tell you that they are quite tolerant and accept others for what they are.
[...]
In day to day life however it turns out that tolerance and acceptance are more of a theoretical concept everyone says they heed but they don't really put into practice.

I'd say that there is quite a lot of tolerance today, but of course with exceptions in many forms of crime and such. Acceptance is less common.

Tolerance for situation X to me means not trying to intervene in situation X to change it; I may not be happy with X but I will not act to change it for something I prefer.

Acceptance for situation X means tolerance, but also with not wanting to change X. I can want to change X, and yet also not change it, which would be tolerance without acceptance.

Maybe the two terms are not so relevant, but I'm suggesting differences between them. All acceptance is with tolerance, but not vice-versa.


People seem to hate on each other to the point of real aggression just to get their points across instead of letting others have their own point of view. Also instead of tolerating people who are different in whatever ways sometimes the treatment of them seems borderline abusive without people even noticing it.

Of course these above observations are just subjective from things I see in daily life, on the media etc. but I discussed it with others and they came to similar observations.

I'd say that attention bias makes crime and general disobedience in society appear worse, but I get you within the context of war and politics, where conflict is more intense.


Why is it so hard for us to put these things into practice?

It takes effort to direct our tendencies away from the 'default' emotional instincts that we are rooted with, into ideas / intellectual perspectives. We all do it, but some do it less than others; some of us have ideas follow emotions more than the other way around.

I see it as inherent human nature, but one that is avoidable at least in some ways. There is capacity for perceived good and evil in all of us, it's a matter of how we direct our desires with the world. We all generally think we are decent beings who are good and right with what we think and do, though. Makes it more complex, of course.


Why don't we admit intolerance when we clearly show it?

Societal pressure of being judged by peers, I guess. Many people don't just admit intolerance, they gladly oppose certain others. Politics as example wouldn't be the way it is, if we entirely formally presented ourselves in agreement with others. Sure, politics has mostly formality which appears polite, but it doesn't get rid of implied opposition to other politicians, only explicit opposition (mostly).


Is it good to be accepting and tolerant or do we try to hard to be and shouldn't? I mean should we stand more to our own views and accept hurting others' feeling instead of trying too hard to be tolerant?
But then why is tolerance seen as so important?

It is seen as better to act in a way that tends toward allowing everyone what they deserve. For most people, what they deserve is privacy and respect in whatever forms, and for some other people who seek conflict, they see others deserving pain and a lesson.