Get an answer to your question
There is one major restriction on tolerance: the prohibition of tolerance to non-tolerance, clearly formulated by Karl Popper in his work “The Open Society and Its Enemies”. In other words, intolerance should not be tolerated, because people's blindness to intolerance and discrimination is precisely the basis of any totalitarian regime.
That is, all this “yes, they believe that Jews are subhuman, but they have such national traditions” , etc., etc. is not meant by the concept of tolerance. Or, to make something more modern and provocative, the idea of tolerance does not imply tolerance for constructions like “our national traditions tell us to stone gays”.
Otherwise, tolerance will simply self-destruct.
No one seems to have mentioned in their answers the classic and highly controversial 1969 collection of articles, Critique of Pure Tolerance, in which tolerance is criticized by left-wing philosophers.�
Robert Paul Wolf, in his article Beyond Tolerance, calls tolerance “the political virtue of a modern pluralistic society.” Virtue is here understood in the Platonic sense as ” a state or property that allows an object to perform its functions well.” It turns out that tolerance is necessary. This is a property that allows a pluralistic democracy to function and implement the ideal of pluralism in practice.
But Wolf believes that this ideal has outlived its usefulness. Such a democracy is the highest stage in the development of industrial capitalism, which neither in theory nor in practice allows for the possibility of a complete restructuring of society. Плю Pluralism, with T. Z. Wolf, does not recognize the existence of any common interests for all, with the exception of the interests of preserving the existing system. Therefore, pluralistic democracy is blind to the problems of society as a whole. But individuals are also deprived of the possibility of direct interaction with the government – they interact with it only as members of groups whose interests are taken into account in such a society. Wolf suggests stopping the battle of competing groups and thinking about the common good.
Herbert Marcuse notes that tolerance can be true and false. False tolerance is a repressive tolerance, tolerance to what hinders the liberation of society. “Indiscriminate tolerance is also justified in harmless disputes ,in conversation, in academic discussion; it is necessary in science, in the sphere of freedom of conscience. However, society should not be promiscuous when it comes to the pacification of existence-where ” freedom and happiness are at stake: here not everything is permissible to speak, not all ideas can be promoted, not all policies are permissible, not all behavior can be allowed — as long as it turns tolerance into a tool for preserving slavery.”With T. Z. Marcuse, such tolerance” strengthens the tyranny of the majority.”
A good team gathered here – all smart, without any sarcasm, wrote everything correctly.Philosophy is not my strong suit, perception is at the level of intuition.I believe that tolerance is harmful in all forms of society, except for democracy.It is impossible to be tolerant under totalitarian and similar regimes.Tolerance is one of the components of democracy.
When tolerance leads to protests based on stupid claims (for example, situations with different films where the plot and logic of which simply cannot have influential blacks, but because of their absence, they are outraged, as a result, there are more and more Blacks in those plots where they should not be), or when tolerance is used to jail or fine a person for an imaginary insult (here, I think, everything is clear).
This is, of course, my subjective opinion and it is likely that most of the site will not like it, but I believe that tolerance is not necessary.Everyone should have the right to their own opinion, and shutting up the same homophobes/racists / etc, shouting about oppression, is a violation of freedom of speech.All opinions and statements should be allowed, as long as they are not blatant violence and calls for it.Well, the extremes that it now takes (quotas for blacks/LGBT people/women in movies and games, hello) are terrible.
The whole point of the current tolerance. A nigger can snowball you, but you can't call him a nigger. And the Asian narrow-eyed. This supposedly offends them. It is useless to argue and not to argue at all. Just because they don't want to understand. It would seem that smart people should understand that tolerance is only in one direction.� And the rights are also supposedly the same for everyone. But you still can't say the word niger. Therefore, they will immediately start raging and will beat you, and they will still be right.
In those cases when people are driven not by love and the desire to do good, but by fear and a hidden desire to cause harm, and tolerance is only a cover (like a religion for crusades). When you are motivated by a desire to cheer up, to make someone's life easier-this is a blessing. When you are motivated by a desire to humiliate, punish, defeat, or destroy someone who disagrees with you, tolerance becomes harmful (just like crusades).
In those cases, when it turns into a dictatorship of minorities, who, in turn, are intolerant of dissent — or do not want to assimilate.
Yes, the titular nation should respect the representatives and representatives of another religious denomination, — but this should not lead to the closure of large streets for religious rites, nor to voluntarism on the part of these people who are trying to impose their own rules here.
Yes, we need to respect the rights of ethnic minorities to freedom of movement and the right to live in our city, — but this should not lead to corrupt local authorities mixing with these ethnic diasporas, allowing their natives to commit lawlessness, beat up men and molest women.
Yes, we need to improve the status of women, fight discrimination against them and gross insults about them — but this does not mean that feminists can dictate their terms to us and impose censorship like “you can't criticize women, you fucking misogynists”.
The scheme is clear.
Classical tolerance: A professes some views, B-others, C-others; A is ready, at least, to accept the views of B and B. Today, the most common type of tolerance is narrow and unidirectional – A has learned to love B, but this A hates C, because C treats B with insufficient piety (“here's a scoundrel, we are all ordered to love B, but C does not want to!”)
For example – as is often the case in the US-Straights are tolerant of LGBT people, but LGBT people, as well as quasi-tolerant Straights, will harass and intimidate a pizza parlor that refuses to serve a gay wedding. The American liberal is tolerant of the Iranian Ayatollahs and nationalist Negro movements, but the conservative for this liberal is Hitler in the flesh, who should be thrown into a camp for re-education.
In cases when it takes on a legislative basis and becomes a mandatory norm. Tolerance is one of the ways to be kind to another person. And in all acts of kindness, the element of voluntariness is critically important. It's nice to be kind only when you don't have to. If the law unceremoniously interferes with moral issues and begins to regulate who needs to be kind to and how much, then this demotivates people. They don't like being kind in such circumstances.
And at the same time, on the other hand, there are a variety of opportunities for abuse. For example, if a person is not hired because they don't know how to do anything, they will always be able to present everything in such a way that they were not hired just because they are black, gay, and profess Islam. And there is only one way for an employer to counteract this – to make the recruitment process as formal as possible: if you meet certain formal conditions, you get a job. Only by implementing such a system can an employer refuse black gays without fear of legal action. However, such a system contradicts the main goal of the employer: to hire the most suitable employees. He has to take those who came first and fit into the formal criteria. And this is very bad for business.
to answer this question, you need a clear orientation in the categories of good and evil, righteousness and iniquity, and so on. And this category is different in human societies. I will answer your question from the point of view of Christianity-tolerance should be shown not to evil, but to people who are hostages of evil, evil itself cannot be tolerated and it is necessary to wage a spiritual war with it. Therefore, in Christian teaching, the ideal goal is not to indulge evil, perversions and delusions, but to liberate peoples through preaching and light from darkness and ignorance.14 Do all things without murmuring or doubting,15 that you may be blameless and pure, children of God without blemish in the midst of a rebellious and perverse generation, among whom you shine as the lights of the world.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people taken for an inheritance, to proclaim the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light(1 Peter 2: 9).
“Tolerance” is just an ideological device from the field of management.�
With the disappearance of information boundaries, the average citizen is overwhelmed by a huge amount of hitherto unknown information about cultural, ethnic, sexual and religious diversity. His reaction is shock and rejection. To stop mutual aggression on the “grassroots” the idea of “tolerance” is just pedaled.
For people who decide something in society – that is, they are able to understand their own and collective interests, and to defend them-this topic is not relevant.
If our economic and political interests require it, we will be tolerant to the highest standards.�
If our interests require us to “get wet” , we will declare a crusade and organize a clean-up operation. Well, or, at least, the defeat of the eastern bazaar by the Airborne Forces on August 2, or the dispersal of the gay parade by the outraged religious community.
Everything is good in moderation. If tolerance leads to destructive consequences, then it is harmful for what it destroys. Any society or community is based on traditions. Some traditions we call laws, others-moral and ethical norms. If someone in a society with established norms decides to live by their own rules, it is quite possible that it will be harmful and destructive for society. For an example. Suppose there is a village that has been used to following the same rules for years and decades, and new people settle here. They throw garbage and sewage on the street, eat cats and dogs, and go naked. Isn't their deviant behavior harmful to the established society? Or in a country with right-hand traffic rules, someone basically drives on the left side of the road. Is it harmful or is it necessary to show tolerance, because freedom of expression and so on? I believe that tolerance can be harmful and have devastating consequences for society, where under the guise of tolerance, norms and rules that are alien to this society will be introduced.
Tolerance to drunkenness – both at home and in the workplace.�
If we assume that human nature is the same everywhere, then the uncompromising attitude to drunkenness and drinking in the West keeps millions of potential alcoholics in check. The fear of being fired immediately and without explanation makes people perform professional duties sober. And not at work, too, think 300 times before you drink.Make society's attitude toward drunks intolerant. That would be great!
People do not die in car accidents, families do not collapse, the level of service is better, it is easier and more pleasant for everyone to live. There is no such number of offenses committed while drunk.
You must Register or
Login to add an answer.