Tolerable, Thank You
As a writer, I sometimes struggle with knowing which words to use to best convey my thoughts. I do primarily think in American English, but not all of my thoughts seem to match words exactly. Making this task more difficult for me is when the meaning of a word changes, whether by a reasonable process or an unreasonable one (such as having someone hijack a term for political ends). Despite a desire on the part of some people to the contrary, words do not simply mean anything we want them to. One of the words which has suffered from such a hijacking is the word “tolerance.” Doug TenApel expresses himself on the word as well those who use and abuse it:
Since that time when terms like tolerance or intolerance came up, I got all cringey. They don’t know what these words mean and have a funny way of showing it if they do. Given I’ve had to sit through the standard mandatory Sensitivity Training at every major studio, I’d like to return the favor by offering Tolerance Training. Only my seminar isn’t hosted by a condescending feminist lawyer from the Big Apple, so the threat level in the room has already gone down to yellow, maybe even blue.
[...]
It also isn’t tolerant to believe that all ideas have equal merit. This is an irrational position I’m embarrassed to even bring up. But there are those who have claimed that if I judge a position as bad that I’m being intolerant. Can we agree that eating cute kittens alive for the fun of it doesn’t have as much merit as cuddling them? But to say that all ideas have equal merit is self-refuting because I could propose this idea “all ideas have unequal merit” and you couldn’t judge the statement as false if the first idea were true.
[...]
All people are created equal, but all ideas are not. People should be tolerated, but ideas ought to be judged, weighed and accepted or rejected. We treat each other with civility because we are all creatures made in the image of God. But our ideas are not made in the image of God, so there are philosophical grounds to disrespect some ideas. Which is why I can be tolerant and still call your ideas of Global Warming a complete fraud.
I like his point. You may like it or not; that is, after all, the object of this discussion, no?
Tolerance is a virtue of a free society. Understanding the difference between tolerating an idea or position and supporting it with my mouth and my money is the virtue of an educated society.
Let us work toward a society which is both free and educated.
Disseminate via | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | StumbleUpon
8 Comments, Comment or Ping
MinusCar
17 January 2009, 16:02, UTC
Yikes. Doug’s article is the most intolerant piece of reading I’ve seen in a long time.
I’ll sum it up with this – “my seminar isn’t hosted by a condescending feminist lawyer from the Big Apple.” He is clearly not rejecting ideas here, rather the person – therefore it is preposterous for him to expect that I should accept his later assurances that he’s rejecting the idea of Prop 8 and not people. The fact that he can’t see that he’s doing it makes the whole post suspect.
“All people are created equal, but all ideas are not.” – I agree.
“People should be tolerated, but ideas ought to be judged, weighed…” – I agree.
“…and accepted or rejected.” – false choice. I agree that there are cute kittens; I don’t agree we should eat them. Alive. For fun.
“We treat each other with civility because we are all creatures made in the image of God.” – I love people because they are made in the image of and by God. I treat them with civility because I’m bad at loving everybody and I want to live in a civil society.
“But our ideas are not made in the image of God, so there are philosophical grounds to disrespect some ideas.” – Wow this to me seems fraught with peril.
“Which is why I can be tolerant and still call your ideas of Global Warming a complete fraud.” – hmmm…”ideas of Global Warming.” Did the meaning of ideas just get hijacked? A bit like rejecting the idea of kittens I think.
Michael Woodring
17 January 2009, 16:49, UTC
Minuscar,
We, being human, do struggle with divorcing ideas from people (so as to tolerate the people but not support the ideas they espouse). In reference to the lawyer from the Big Apple, it can be especially difficult to tolerate people who bathe themselves in a worldview to the extent that I cannot separate who they are from what they believe: because they do not want me to.
If ideas cannot be judged, weighed and then accepted and rejected, then the ultimate end of such thinking is that all ideas are equal. I do believe that’s the point of the kitten reference.
Though disrespecting ideas may seem fraught with peril, we constantly do so in order to remain sane. Someone may have the idea that for lunch we should go to HuHot. Someone else may think that Qdoba is the way to go. Unless we are to eat lunch in two places today, it is inevitable that someone’s idea is disrespected: that is, it is accorded less respect to the point of not being chosen as appropriate or proper or whatever.
On the “ideas of Global Warming” I’d agree that the syntax is poor. A better word than “of” would have been “regarding.” I suppose one of the things which we all must tolerate is lack of perfection in communication on the part of each other.
Fastidious
17 January 2009, 22:20, UTC
Minuscar,
You should read a book called “Language is Sermonic” by Richard Weaver. Words betray our thoughts, whether we like it or not.
~Fastidious
MinusCar
18 January 2009, 12:09, UTC
HuHot/Qdoba – or one goes to Doug’s sensitivity training and the other goes to the lawyers sensitivity training and both figure they’ve come out more sensitive.
MinusCar
18 January 2009, 13:04, UTC
Let’s be sure not to hijack the word disrespect too. dictionary.com clearly shows a component of discourtesy, rudeness, and contempt in the meaning of disrespect.
Michael
18 January 2009, 16:23, UTC
Hardly hijacking the word disrespect to use the primary meaning–lack of respect. Yes, it can also mean rude, discourteous, etc.
Discussions would be so much simpler if each word had a single unequivocal meaning. Of course, no one of us would perhaps learn anything.
If it’s fine with you, can we both skip the sensitivity training that neither of us would appreciate? Thanks.
MinusCar
19 January 2009, 11:34, UTC
1. lack of respect; discourtesy; rudeness
I do not agree that disrespect is as benign as you seem to put forth. I am not ready to ignore words four and five. In fact Webster includes the word incivility in its definition which doesn’t square with Doug’s ideal of being civil to one another because they’re made in God image.
Perhaps disagree is better. You have to get all the way down to definition #3 before you find quarrel but you certainly never find discourtesy, rudeness and contempt.
Yes, I much prefer you disagree with my idea to have lunch at HuHut before you disrespect it, for I’m much happier having lunch with someone who disagrees with my ideas than with someone who disrespects them.
As for sensitivity training – Doug says his article is the training so I’ve already been to his.
Michael Woodring
19 January 2009, 15:06, UTC
You are welcome to disagree with my use of disrespect. I was not intending for my usage to be benign, but rather appropriate.
Whether disagreement or disrespect it comes down to the same thing: I cannot accord the same worth to those ideas which I tolerate as I do to those ideas which I propound.
I’m glad you’ve completed your training. Mine is ongoing.
Update on Disagreement vs Disrespect
At http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/disagreement-is.html one finds the following: