The intolerance of tolerance


“Don't be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today.”

-Malcolm X

I had debated with myself about what I should do my next myTake on, but considering the state of the world right now, it quickly became clear what I needed to write about. Everyday I log into this app and I see the usual posts fishing for attention as well as genuine questions that somehow devolve into a gender war, which admittedly, I have been involved in myself. I think it is easy to take the stance of "My way is the only right way" when in reality the truth is closer to "My way is the only way I know how to be comfortable with".

It would be easy for me to start writing about my thoughts on politics, gender roles, my support of the LGBT community, parenting and many other topics. It would be easy for this whole post to devolve into another war being waged in the comment section. It would be easy for us to draw our battle lines and dare the other side to cross so that our reactions become justified. My challenge to you and to myself is to listen to what the other side has to say, whether you agree or not to their point. It's not about getting people to agree with you, it's simply about getting to vocalize why you feel a particular way and actively listening to what the others think about their position. Maybe, if we are lucky, we can even find a middle ground.

“If I do not believe as you believe, it proves that you do not believe as I believe, and that is all that it proves.”
― Thomas Paine

I can only write about the workings of the US right now. I am aware of the conflicts across the seas, but I don't dare try to speak on something I am not qualified or have the knowledge to discuss intelligently. I do think though, some of the same threads could be applied to most conflict. For those here in the US we are still having the same debates today that we have had since the founding of this country, the topic of race, politics, and wealth. As I stated earlier, I am not here to break these down further. I just want to know, when did we forget how to talk to one another? When did this become a battle of who can shout the loudest and get the biggest headlines? When did we forget how to be civil and learn to find compromise?

I question if we ever did have it at all.

Is this simply a modern reflection of who we always have been? Is this a reflection of who we always will be? Will complacency in allowing this type of rhetoric to continue ultimately be our downfall? I know among us there are rational, compassionate, hard working people who seek solace in the thoughts of "They are all crazy. I am staying out of it", but it shouldn't be that way at all. We need those people to stand up and command the room, temper the fires of debate from both sides, and help guide us to a more tolerant way of speaking to one another.

“In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.”
― Dalai Lama

Maybe this is all just a pipe dream. A fantastical wish from the young scared version of me just trying to be accepted by those around her. Will this have any impact at all or only be met with cynical doubt or derision? I guess it is up to each of us to decide how we go from here. I am not expecting miracles or for mass amounts of change. I just hope one person reads this and decides to take a different approach in their conversations. I hope that one inspires another to do the same. A slow trickle that turns into a flood to drown out and wash away the inflammatory voices of both sides.

In the end, none of us should die for an ideal that can't be molded into something better for us all.

“Discord is the great ill of mankind; and tolerance is the only remedy for it.”
― Voltaire

Start dialogues, not wars of words.
Start dialogues, not wars of words.
The intolerance of tolerance
Add Opinion
5Girl Opinion
13Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Girl

  • loves2learn
    Very well said. I agree with your assessment of the state of the US. It’s a really sad state of affairs. In general I think peoples ability to communicate with each other has greatly decreased due to electronic communication.
    Is this still revelant?
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      Thank you 😊

      I agree though. Everything has to be in short bursts to keep attention otherwise they tune out the topic

    • Yes! You are absolutely right. They tune out anything not in short bursts. Very observant of you.

Most Helpful Guy

  • Xyglo27
    People these days have forgotten the concept of 'Agree to disagree'.

    We all need to revive this.
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • PaynefulPleasures
    👍✌️The intolerance of toleranceThe intolerance of tolerance
  • Jaylaaa2000
    Agree. People need to learn we aren't all gonna agree and not from the same place or raised the same.
    So shocker we have different values and opinions
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      Exactly! If we can explain why our core values mean so much in the areas we are from and find tolerance of others beliefs then we have a good starting point to work from

    • Agreef

    • goaded

      That's true, but what about facts? Should we have different facts?

    • Show All
  • bulletbob555
    Very good understanding of things you have. I saw it said we are very much like the late 60's and early70's. There are political protests, racial division, and questioning of the classes. I hope everything changes for the best. Like Bob Dylan said back then these times they are a changing
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      I definitely hope it changes for the better. I understand change is scary and some will inevitably have to give up some of their position for anything to happen, but I don't believe us all incapable of making it happen.

    • The things from the sixties changed the world to this day. Like I said I hope it works out for the best this time. Good or bad there will be change

    • Ez-Bri-Z

      Let's hope it is for good then : )

  • Gray-Wisp
    When two (or more because there's more) sides are all forced into a society where voting matters (even if all votes aren't equal) there will exist severe conflict. I have a lot of incentive to try to remove those that disagree with me because voting exists, as do they to me. Removal can mean many things. In the modern sense it often is either censorship or financial removal. If someone shares an opinion that isn't liked by corporate elites on Facebook, Twitter, etc. then their account is banned even if they didn't violate their Terms of Service. If an employer finds out someone has an unpopular opinion they're promptly fired. This is what happens to you if you're not a Neo-Liberal or doing something that will end up pushing something that furthers the Neo-Liberal agenda. I know that this is supposed to be about the U. S. but in many other democracies/republics you are jailed if the government doesn't like your speech. This is especially true in Canada and Scotland. How long before the U. S. does this? As long as governments, corporations, and citizens continue this why would there be a conversation? Neo-Liberals are currently the biggest group after all, why change your winning strategy of silencing the opposition? Strategically it doesn't make sense to give your rivals a platform. Welcome to the culture war.
  • anylolone
    Tolerance is good, at least with people not prone to grab a gun over almost any disagreement. Karl popper, the libertarian philosopher said best.

    But I'm not going to be intolerant of the radically tolerant, I'm going to warn them that a good chuck of my scars came from being tolerant of the violent.
  • NikolaiIvanov
    I see that you and me stand on very different political fronts but from my perspective this a very rational and good post which I generally don't relate with the things that you agree with, which is quite surprising. I see sheer hypocrisy in that certain political wing and fail to see the reasons to be politically correct and denounce my own culture and history. As another person replied about people distorting the meaning of words to fit and agree in their opinions, your post was a display for respect of proper civil discussion but I feel that we've gone beyond that point as a society and gone back into tribalist agendas.
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      Sadly I feel you may be right about society, but I can still hold out a measure of hope for it. 😊

  • Celtero
    Ah, yes, the kumbaya moment.

    The problem is we disagree on the fundamentals of human nature and society as we know it. So no, we can't tolerate each other.

    And you know, I don't see why I, or you for that matter, would want to tolerate one another.

    So is this type of sentiment just a really long-winded virtue signal? Probably.
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      I can tolerate anyone as long as they are not hurting children. I may not like their position or their attitude. I can disagree and still be tolerant of them

  • DaisyM23
    I am tolerant of tolerance bur intolerant of intolerance
  • goaded
    "when did we forget how to talk to one another? When did this become a battle of who can shout the loudest and get the biggest headlines? When did we forget how to be civil and learn to find compromise?"

    If I had to pick a moment, it would probably be this one.

    The audience had been told: "We ask the Convention Center audience here to abide by one ground rule: Please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate." Reagan ensured they would., Carter was in favour of solar power, and universal health care, 40 years ago.
  • NoManTwo
    Don't expect tolerance from me if you are incapable of tolerance.
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      I don't disagree with that stance at all. If the opposing side doesn't come to the table in good faith or even willing to listen, sometimes alternate methods should be used. I just think our first step is to come to an understanding first

  • loveslongnails
    My first thought was: "What about when the thing you believe in is an absolute in your mind, and can BE no other way? What if those who don't believe the same not only won't 'tolerate' your belief, but are violently opposed to it and will act on that violence" ?
    What then?

    There are, unfortunately, certain concepts that remain undebatable to both sides of a belief. I'm not talking "politics", because that's completely open to compromise. I'm talking about certain core beliefs about life, humanity, race, justice, and so on. For many, there is simply no room for discourse or discussion on these matters.
    What then?
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      Nothing in this life is absolute other than death. Most of our core values define who we are, but are we malleable as a species? Absolutely.

      Most of the time we get stuck in a certain core belief because of how we are raised, our religion, our experiences, etc but ultimately we all have free will. We all have the ability to choose what we will.

      If we choose to listen and speak our own experiences, people can be moved from their positions in their beliefs. People can learn there is more ways than one to see a situation. Those who choose not to listen have the choice not to, but it doesn't mean even that can't change over time.

    • This right here: " If we choose to listen and speak our own experiences, people can be moved from their positions in their beliefs. People can learn there is more ways than one to see a situation. Those who choose not to listen have the choice not to, but it doesn't mean even that can't change over time" ... is something YOU choose to believe, but it isn't born out by history.

      Let's talk about the word "can". "Can" means you have the capability. It means you are "able" to do a certain thing. So to say "people CAN LEARN to there are more ways than one to view a situation" is nothing more than a statement of fact. But that capability means nothing if they don't choose to look at other ways.

      "It doesn't mean they 'can't' change over time". Again, a true statement, but now you're talking about other concepts. Eventually, the sun will not rise as it did for who knows how many eons, but it's a safe enough assumption it will continue to do so for a very long time. Human intolerance and stupidity also bears that same safe assumption of reliability.

    • Ez-Bri-Z

      A small ripple can cause a wave. Consider me the ripple that is trying to cause the waves.

      I intend to try and show a different way of understanding. I am willing to move off my beliefs. I just need others to meet me there in the middle.

    • Show All
  • Agape93
    Well done love! Nicely written :) agreed
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      Thank you so much for reading and your response 😊

    • Agape93


  • Jamie05rhs
    Well, that was a breath of fresh air! 😀
  • Anonymous
    Ah yes, the intolerance of tolerance, sounds like a great description of today's left, the most hateful and hypocritical bunch in modern history. lol
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      I will say that so far these comments seem to reflect the opposite, but I think this also gives us a good place for both sides to come together and talk out their differences. We can come in and provide helpful dialogue instead of using an opening salvo of criticizing the opposing side.

  • Anonymous
    The irony of this topic is that the group of people who view themselves as most tolerant have become the most intolerant segment of society today.
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      I think both sides would say the same about the other.

    • While I feel that's probably true, only one side has been screeching that they're the tolerant ones from the beginning

    • Ez-Bri-Z

      Then let's show them a different way.

    • Show All
  • Anonymous
    I think if you're finding it hard to have a conversation with people who disagree with you, at least part of what's been driving that has been a concerted effort to change the definition of words by fiat so that people are literally only speaking their own language and preaching to their own choir.

    "Tolerance" is being twisted to mean everyone must agree with "my" side.
    "Diversity" is being twisted to mean all races and sexual orientations, but not all ways of thinking--especially not conservative thought.
    "Racism" is being twisted to mean refusing to make race the central organizing principle of how to deal with other people (in otherwords colorblindness or EXACTLY the opposite of what it previously meant"
    "Gender" is being substituted everywhere we used to use "sex"
    Etc., etc.
    • Ez-Bri-Z

      Diversity should be all races, orientations and ways of thinking including conservative thought. It does also mean that those conservative thoughts should also be inclusive otherwise it isn't diversity at all.

      Gender is a more accurate way of expressing it though. You have your biological sexes, but that's not the same as gender.

      In the end, conservatives or liberals don't have to agree with how the other lives. We just need both sides to know that there is room for both sides to exist.

    • Anonymous

      I agree it SHOULD be that. But that's absolutely NOT how it's being used by current "activists." It is frequently meant to exclude particularly conservative thought, but increasingly also whites (and therefore is explicitly racist) and men (and therefore is explicitly sexist). People see this and they aren't interested in playing that game.

      And sorry, but you can't take the position that "conservative thought is not inclusive and therefore we are totally fine to exclude it" while "progressive" thinking does exactly the same thing. Furthermore "inclusivity" as it is currently being used is practically a meaningless term. Take a specific example:

      In hiring should we be "inclusive" of all people? Absolutely, positively NOT. In fact a hiring decision is EXPLICITLY exclusive. The primary goal of the hiring committee is to exclude everyone and anyone you think will not be great for the position. So we frequently put up a set of standards and seek to remove all people who don't meet those standards from the candidate pool.

      Those standards typically revolve around things like knowledge, experience, educational background and work ethic. To use those criteria and NOT things like race, sex, sexual orientation would be the fair thing to do (typically stated as equality of opportunity). This will quite frequently NOT result in the "replacement standard" of "equity" which is equality of outcome. Hiring for a programming job? Candidate will need a programming background. If the pool of programmers is 80/20 men and women, guess what--you won't have as many women. Is that "non-inclusive?" Nonsense. Yet that's exactly what we are being forced to buy into.

    • Ez-Bri-Z

      I didn’t take the stance of conservatives were not inclusive only. I said those conservatives thoughts should ALSO be inclusive implying both sides have an issue.

      Yes with hiring we should be inclusive though. Not all of them will be hired, but everyone should have an opportunity to apply.

      I agree on it should be done based on your requirements and shouldn't be based on race, sex, etc. That is true equality there. Everyone has a chance based on merits and not included or excluded based on things like gender. We are whole heartedly in agreement there.