What is tolerance?
Is it a subtle type of resistance – a defensive strategy – that appears to be the opposite, submission, on macro-level?
Or is it non-resistance, surrender, fatalism, submission, passivity?
It depends upon the person. A person could intend one or more of what you propose. I will tolerate different people for different reasons. Example: Tolerance for my child’s behavior will be for a different reason than tolerance for a stranger’s behavior or someone that I do not like.
That which is not genuinely harmful to exist without any restriction
That would be a form of non-resistance. Liberal tolerance.
Tolerance is like, when a smelly person sits next to you on the bus, even though there are open seats with noone in them, and just sits next to you.
You were in a good mood, so in order to keep your good mood, you have to not quarrel with them, because if you quarell, they will get violent and hostile and kill your good mood.
Some people, like bullies, intentionally do this to force you to quarell and ruin your good mood on purpose.
Liberals advocate tolerance towards homosexuals, which implies that Liberals do not actually like homosexuals, just “tolerate” them and regulate their own instincts from becoming too repulsed by them. Liberals do not ever say “accept” a homosexual, only “tolerance”. Acceptance is an integration into one’s consciousness and a submission to the foreign meme.
What I promote is an acceptance of homosexuals, and a tolerance to homosexual pornography on the internet. I do not believe any heterosexual should ever accept homosexual pornography except if lesbians and femboys are in it.
I think you are right Trixie. Acceptance is better than tolerance for it is less restrictive because it is entirely unconditional
Whereas tolerance implies that one has some reservations about something but does not seek to restrict it in spite of them
So you think that tolerance is a hypocritical form of acceptance, of non-resistance, where people secretely desire to resist the object of their tolerance but publicly deny it.
The bottom line is that you still think like a liberal: that tolerance is a form of non-resistance.
Tolerance defined as the opposite of what tolerance really is, as not resisting that which does not have to be resisted.
It does not have to be secretive. There is no reason why one cannot be open about the things one is tolerant about. And it is not a binary question either. Some things are of course absolutely intolerant while other things are absolutely acceptable. But everything else falls somewhere in between. So those are the things where one has to determine what the degree of tolerance should be
Your position is that tolerance is non-resistance. To tolerate something, according to you, means to offer no resistance to it.
My position is that tolerance is a form of resistance where the object of destruction is the most immediate cause of harm.
Tolerance, in this sense of the word, is often contrasted with resistance. Both are defensive strategies. They are both forms of resistance. Even though the second strategy takes the word resistance for itself incorrectly suggesting that the first strategy is not a form of resistance.
Both strategies are useful. One has to learn when to apply them. Nonetheless, I think that tolerance is the fundamental strategy in the sense that resistance is built on top of it and cannot function without it.
If resistance means destroying the person using the gun that shoots the bullet that hits the body negatively affecting it (= destroying the mediate cause), tolerance means destroying the negative effect created by the bullet hitting the body (= destroying the immediate cause.)
Tolerance destroys, resists, counters, rejects, attacks, eliminates, nullifies, removes, bans no less than its opposite strategy. The difference merely lies in the object of destruction. Tolerance attacks the immediate (peripheral) cause. Resistance attacks the mediate (central) cause.
In this sense, tolerance is the most natural, the most direct and the most courageous form of resistance.
Tolerance is synonymous with endurance which means “to harden” or “to thicken”. Its symbol is camel.
You invert the concept when you define it as non-resistance.
The cause of confusion is the fact that there are multiple causes to resist and that we have to choose which ones to resist.
When you tolerate, you do not resist the central cause because you choose to resist the peripheral cause.
Tolerance is a form of resistance that is invisible because its movements are micro-movements not visible on macro-level. It’s hard to distinguish it from passivity.
Intuition and logic have a similar relationship as that between tolerance and resistance.
Intuition being peripheral, holistic, event-centric, present-minded, best effort driven method of prediction.
Logic being central, reductionistic, theory-centric, future-minded, correctness driven method of prediction.
Tolerance is a resistance of the resistance of the resistance. A triple negative, simplified into a non-resistance of the resistance.
Tolerance refers to an intrusive entity in the membrane, an inherent physio-emotional resistance, that the consciousness forces itself to not resist.
We are tolerant of something when we dislike it but are too weak to oppose it.
AutSider,
You have no problem with humiliating people unnecessarily and engaging in a physical altercation with an intoxicated idiot? You would waste your energy on dealing with a world full of bozo’s, who are no direct/immediate threat to you, making it a full-time job some days? Being in the sticks has its benefits with only visitations to a city.
An example of tolerance would be an exposure to cold environments in which one focuses internally, on one’s body, in order to build a wall, to thicken or harden one’s “skin”, such that the negative effects produced by the low temperature are nullified.
An example, and a sign, of intolerance to such an environment would be shivering.
An example of resistance, of confrontation on macro-level, would be making fire.
An example of avoidance, on macro-level of course, would be running away from the cold environment with the hope of finding a more comfortable environment.
Without tolerance for the immediate environment, no high-level function can, well, function.
You cannot start a fire without first being tolerant of your cold environment.
Women are notorious for being highly intolerant and dependent on high-level functions.
Oh Magnus,
Thanks for expanding the scope, I had tunnel vision concerning people.
Liberal tolerance means non-resistance. It’s how someone who does not want to be resisted would define tolerance.
According to such a definition, a man who shivers in the cold need not do anything more than simply resist the temptation to change the temperature of the environment in order to be considered tolerant. Thus, someone who chooses to leave the environment would be considered tolerant, even though the very act of avoidance betrays intolerance. In those cases when even avoidance counts as a form of intolerance, the problem remains because there are still many other, infinitely many other, manifestations of intolerance that are not included in the definition, and that will never be included, because the definition is created in such a manner so as to serve the one who does not want to be confronted. It’s a third-person definition. What is good for others, not what is good for you. So for example, if someone is not leaving the cold environment that is making him shiver, he will be considered tolerant even if he did nothing to adapt to it, which tends to manifest as perpetual shivering. In such a case, distraction is confused with tolerance.
Tolerance is an active effort.
Definitions change with generations. Mostly not a lot but, there are times where seniors get confused as hell.