[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I'll point that out when someone says their only tolerating it cause they have to.. In Spanish if someone tolerates you it's never a good thing.

Snowy:

I didn't say it was a good thing. I'm not describing the world as I would like to see it. I'm trying to discuss the world as it appears to be. No, tolerating isn't the ideal. But what is living in a society but tolerating people and ideas and things you would much rather not have to? I don't *want* to live in a world with racists. But I *do* live in that world and since one of us has to act right, I will extend to a bigot all the tolerance I am able to. Tolerance is also not a switch, it is a slider. I will tolerate some things more than others.

You have said what you do not want but you have not said what you *do* want. What is tolerance to you? What is acceptance?

Let me illustrate what *I* mean by tolerance. We live in a religiously plural society. I am an atheist. As it turns out, I tend to think that the case against there being a divine being is much stronger than the one that can be made for there being one. I have to deal with people who believe, quite wrongly, that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I tolerate that. We live in a complex society filled with lots of people many of whom, perhaps large swaths of whom, believe or behave in ways we do not like. We do not have to like them. They do not have to like us. We DO have to get on with one another because they aren't going away and we aren't going away. I do not expect, for instance, a Christian to be thrilled about there being atheists. I do not expect her to think that I might have a point. In fact, I *fully* expect her to believe that I am wrong, to put it mildly, and seriously deluded. But we still have to work next to one another and so we must *tolerate* one another.

The Constitution does not promise that people of different religious beliefs will see one another's point, it says they must tolerate one another. That means you don't go about passing laws designed to make the other lot's life miserable. That means you do the job in front of you and focus on the commonalities.

Again, I do not believe that our rights come FROM our identities. Our identities are--or at least should be--completely beside the point. I am not ever going to live in a society populated by people entirely like me. I do not feel like living inside a hermetically sealed bubble where the only people I associate with and who feel comfortable associating with me are people who are like me or very close approximations of me. I can't have it, wouldn't like it and so must live in a society where we will disagree but where we must get along in spite of all that.

In a world without prejudices tolerance would truly be a bad thing. This is not a world without prejudices. There will, for any foreseeable future where the human brain works like it appears to now be bigots. There will, for as long as there is commerce, people who are better off than others. There will always be an uneven distribution of talents and depending upon completely arbitrary variables of time and place, one's abilities or talents may or may not be valued higher or lower. We cannot, not in any society where people are treated more-or-less equally before the law, have equality of outcomes. We can't. Believing we can is believing that one can make the garden grow not by planting and watering but in believing that unicorns will take care of it all. So the question I think we have to answer, as a community, is what *can* we achieve. If you think that we can have a world where people who hold the attitudes that your neighbors do can be eliminated, I would be interested to hear *how* we get there from where we are.

Cheers
Aj