response 25 of 97:

Jun 9 23:39 UTC 2002

Lynne, it's not just tolerance for (in this case) gay people.
I wonder if, as a society, we're establishing that tolerance is good
enough -- even if it's the minimum that can be expected (even as some
believe that it is the most that can be expected). I don't know how
realistic it is to say that when gay people are tolerated, only then
can we ask for more -- as if we'll ever get to the point that enough
people are tolerant that we can move into phase N+1.

response 27 of 97:

Jun 10 04:44 UTC 2002

English is my 3rd language and sometimes I have problems with words that
differ slightly from others, perhaps because I map them to words that may
or may not mean exactly the same thing.

In Hebrew, the word I associate with "tolerance" shares a root with
suffering. Perhaps the opposite of "I can't stand it". Or maybe even
the "do not suffer a witch to live".

So it's not just a selfish distinction from "acceptance" -- a view I
think was shared by John Leland over 200 years ago when (as quoted in
the item text, speaking against the necessity of requiring the swearing
of a religious oath) he said:

        The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea
        is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence about the
        rest to grant indulgence....

I suppose, though, that one could state the exact same about "acceptance".
Who are you to indulge me (or not) with your acceptance?  (And whom would
I be if I lived my life based on the tolerance/acceptance of Mr. Nobody?)

Yet in a democracy, where representatives -- who may are may not choose to
pass laws showing either "tolerance" or "acceptance" -- are elected by
the sum of the people, obviously what people think does count. Collectively
(which is what I called "society") if not individually.

response 29 of 97:

Jun 10 14:24 UTC 2002

I guess I just dont see where one can have acceptance without having 
tolerance first. I mean, lets just say that I really hate purple people 
and some purple people start moving into my neighborhood. My reaction 
could be one of aggression, tolerance, or acceptance. Lets just say 
that I am not ready for acceptance. You see, I really hate these purple 
mofo's but I value tolerance as a virtue so when they move in, I put up 
with it even though it bugs me that they are there. 

You see, in the tolerance model, the only person who suffers is the one 
who creates the suffering. e.g. I suffer because I am the one with the 
hatred of purple people so I am the one who is bothered by them living 
in the neighborhood. 

Now maybe I am lucky and these purple people are really cool and stop 
by my fence when they walk by to tell me funny jokes. And maybe after a 
while, I stop hating them and actually accept them. The acceptance 
might benefit them some but mostly it benefits me. 

Who am I to grant tolerance and/or acceptance? I am me. Every 
individual has that power no matter what group they belong to. 

response 31 of 97:

Jun 10 14:32 UTC 2002

A group I was in had suggested this method of voting:
3 - Great, let's go for it!
2 - It's ok, I guess.
1 - I don't really like it, but I won't leave the group over it.
0 - Forget it. If we vote this in, I'm leaving.

If a vote received any 0s at all, the issue lost. Otherwise, if the average
of the votes was 2.0 or higher, the issue won.
 
In that system, I'd say that a 1 equated to tolerance, and a 2 to acceptance.
OBviously, somebody putting an issue forward wants as much acceptance as
possible -- if all there is is tolerance, then the measure would still fail.
And yes, "tolerance" does imply a right to judge: As poetic as I find Leland's
words, he's wrong. Tolerance (and toleration, the 18th-centurty vogue version
of basically the same word) does not imply that one group of people has some
right to judge everyone else. It implies that *everyone* has the right to
judge everyone else's actions, which they do, inasmuch as those actions might
affect them. For instance, two men holding hands in San Francisco aren't going
to affect me directly (unless they happened to be filmed doing so, in a film
I see); two men holding hands on my front lawn will, everytime I look out my
window. I have the right to say, "I don't like seeing that!" They have the
right to say, "I don't like being told how to express my affection!" But will
I leave the country because of it?

So when a gay activist group say it's seeking tolerance, it means that it
would really love it if everyone accepted them, but at the very least, they
want everyone to stop beating gays up for being gay. That's what "tolerance"
(and "toleration") means to me: You don't have to like it, but you have to
live with it.

response 33 of 97:

Jun 10 14:47 UTC 2002

tolerance and acceptance are terms still based on personal (selfish)
judgements, and not the real issue. i think a better word may be empathy.

response 35 of 97:

Jun 10 15:02 UTC 2002

empathy, you hypocrite.

response 37 of 97:

Jun 10 16:02 UTC 2002

I don't know, I would prefer to be accepted rather than tolerated.  I 
agree that acceptance does not automatically mean "agreement," as many 
today believe it to be.

response 39 of 97:

Jun 10 19:16 UTC 2002

Well, I think it is human nature to seek acceptance from others. How 
would you feel if you knew that your neighbors had real issues with you 
but arent doing anything about it because they are being tolerant? If 
it were one neighbor, it probably wouldnt bother you. What if you knew 
that all of your neighbors considered you an outsider because of your 
skin color or sexual preference or whatever? It would feel really 
weird. 

I think my view of tolerance is different than lk's though
I think tolerance is being willing to let them live next door but still 
disliking them or what they do Acceptance is treating them like they 
belong.

Tolerance = I can tolerate black people living in my neighborhood but I 
still think *they* are bad people and not like *us* at all.

Acceptance = I accept that black people are going to live in *our* 
neighborhood. *We* will get along fine, I am sure.

Tolerance = Fags are sinners but it isnt any concern of mine. Let God 
do the judging and lets make sure the law here on earth treats everyone 
equally.

Acceptance = Homosexuality isnt for me but I can see why some folks 
might like it. 

response 41 of 97:

Jun 11 14:43 UTC 2002

Honestly Leeron, don't you prefer that, the people that you know versus 
those that pretend and secretly have problems with it?  I don't think I 
worded it quite right, so let me know if you don't understand my 
question.

response 43 of 97:

Jun 11 15:06 UTC 2002

I think that's exactly it!

INtolerant: those who have a problem with it and do NOT pretend.

Tolerant: those who pretend but nonetheless have a problem with it.

Acceptive: those who have no problem with it and no need to pretend.

Are we too busy teaching people to pretend, to TOLERATE diversity,
than to actually ACCEPT people for who they are?

response 45 of 97:

Jun 11 15:41 UTC 2002

#43 was in response to bhelliom's #41.

Brooke, maybe all the bigot needs is a nice big hug?

The bigot is entitled to its beliefs, so yes, you have to accept that.
Just as the flat earth society is free to believe in primitive notions.
You may not be offended by the latter and just shrug it off as stupidity,
whereas you might see "evil" in the former.

Of course, absent a "thought police", we might never know who the silent
or inactive bigots are.  If a person vocalizes this bigotry, you have every
right to disagree.  And you have the right to pick your own friends.  Now if
a person acts based on this bigotry, that's a different ballpark.

response 47 of 97:

Jun 11 18:56 UTC 2002

I think for the most part, between the two of you, the answer is 
there.  For instance I would argue that "tolerance" is also used as a 
mask for those who won't express their disagreement, as well as those 
who don't agree but acknowledge the rights of others to have the 
opposite opinion, or subscribe to something to which they are opposed.  
Intolerance is a small step away from the former, and a larger one for 
the latter.  So,  I think you're both right, just wording it 
differently.

response 49 of 97:

Jun 11 21:03 UTC 2002

#47> I would definitely say that failing to express a strong dislike for
something, and pretending to like that thing, is a form of tolerance.