Archive for September 2008
Selective Tolerance
“I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance” –Socrates.
Many have tackled this famous quote to stress the importance of humility. As often as we remind ourselves of this aphorism, we’re constantly struggling to fully absorb it, especially when good things come our way as a result of hard work. It’s important to remember that we can always work harder, learn more and ask more questions, but it’s essential that we use this quote as a basis for how we treat other people, particularly if we consider ourselves smarter than most.
The self-proclaimed tolerant, socially evolved people of today get nothing out of Socrates’ words of wisdom if they spend their time exploiting their open views and criticizing others for thinking differently. They can claim to be more understanding and accepting than previous generations and the uneducated, but broadcasting their beliefs and putting down those of others makes them much less intelligent and tolerant than they assume. Intolerant views are unpopular and looked down upon today. As unfair as some of these beliefs may be, the socially evolved who scold others for being intolerant are being just that, therefore, hypocritical.
Situations like this raise a reasonable question- How can someone claim tolerance if they don’t actually tolerate everything? Why is it all right to call oneself tolerant by accepting contemporary beliefs and not others? The American Heritage Dictionary defines tolerance as “the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.” The definition does not include any exceptions to what is and isn’t tolerable, so anyone intolerant of anything cannot use this noun to describe themselves. Selective tolerance more appropriately defines what these people have.
Hate crimes are frowned upon because they target a person’s social group, ethnicity, religion, gender, political affiliation, etc. They usually involve danger and violence, so while hate crimes are examples of serious offenses against someone in one of these particular categories, there are discreet, pervasive ways in which one can verbally annihilate another for being of a different political affiliation. It’s not a hate crime to disagree with a political standpoint, but to send taunting emails, berate and unfairly label someone is abusive, immature and unacceptable behavior.
One can still be tolerant without embracing every existing viewpoint, but one cannot be tolerant by harassing and punishing someone of a different stance. What’s more intolerant-Being politically incorrect or calling someone a name for expressing political dissent? Why has it become socially acceptable to abuse, disrespect and dehumanize someone for having an unpopular view?
