|
Post by moonwolf23 on Oct 27, 2013 5:37:35 GMT -8
What is your take on these concepts? Which do you prefer and why?
|
|
|
Post by roguebiologist on Oct 27, 2013 6:12:33 GMT -8
Acceptance by far. Tolerance is patronising. In my eyes it implies that the person doing the tolerating is better than the other person, but out of the goodness of their heart they're tolerating them. Saying you're tolerant of other [religions/races/sexualities/whatever] doesn't say anything other than the fact you're willing to put up with them.
By contrast, I see acceptance as you, well, accepting people for what they are. It doesn't mean you necessarily have to like them but accepting their stuff is valid and letting them do their thing seems to me a whole lot more of a decent thing to do than tolerating them, and a whole lot more genuine by far.
I guess my view largely based on the idea that a cafe with a sign saying, "People of all religions accepted!" would be far more likely to get my patronage than "People of all religions tolerated!" because I resent my presence being tolerated. This possibly makes it a bit of a weak argument in other contexts though. >.>
|
|
|
Post by moonwolf23 on Oct 27, 2013 6:40:52 GMT -8
I wouldn't call Tolerance Patronising. I tolerate the Southern Baptist church, in fact my tolerance goes as far as close to acceptance, but there are still very big issues I have with it. I do not accept scientology, but I am tolerant.
I guess I would put this in the same category as being civil vs family respect. I will be polite when civil but when I consider you family, there is a lot of stuff I will do and put up with, that I wouldn't on someone I didn't know.
|
|
|
Post by roguebiologist on Oct 28, 2013 4:16:13 GMT -8
Hm, the Scientology point is an interesting one because I'd say I take the reverse point of view. I accept that Scientology is a thing people believe in, even if it's not my personal belief, but I don't think I'd be particularly tolerant of most of the behaviour associated with that organisation, which is what I object. I honestly don't care what people believe so long as they don't harm my friends/family/self/stuff.
With the other examples though I suspect we possibly may be differing in how we're using the words, so this could be a semantic difference. To me, accepting someone means I don't particularly care what it is they believe or do, so tolerance doesn't really come into it. I'm intolerant of people preaching at me regardless of subject matter (and I'm not just talking about religion here) but for the most part accept that different faith, culture, etc is a part of life and don't let it bother me.
As for civility vs family respect? Well, I guess I see that as a separate thing again. I can be extremely intolerant of someone's belligerence but will still be civil to them, even as I tear into them. And while I accept the fact that my family is not without flaws, I don't see living with these flaws as an act of tolerance but accepting that they're a thing which I have to work with if I want to keep this person in my life. The point I start tolerating their behaviour is the point I realise something is wrong in how we're interacting, because ordinarily I wouldn't have to.
So yes, this possibly is down to semantics here, we may well be talking about the same thing but using the same words differently.
|
|
|
Post by lyradora on Oct 28, 2013 10:04:15 GMT -8
It depends on the circumstances. I accept -- for example -- the many different polytheist traditions, my husband's love of video games, and my own deep-seated need to write or go insane. I tolerate the customers at work who insistently try to get me to read Christian literature. I can't accept their actions and attitudes because that would feel (to me) like a betrayal of my Pagan identity, but I have to tolerate them or risk alienating paying customers and possibly losing my job.
|
|
|
Post by papagena on Oct 29, 2013 18:39:35 GMT -8
From Wikipedia:
"Acceptance in human psychology is a person's assent to the reality of a situation, recognizing a process or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit."
"Tolerance or toleration is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
I fear there is a risk of arbitrary semantic games here, but my knee-jerk reaction was to agree with roguebiologist that "tolerance" is patronising. The word connotes being given/requiring grudging permission from a majority or higher authority, I think, which can be rather sinister in its implications. But by the definitions above...
The point about Scientology was interesting, and I think perspective is vital in answering this question: Do we mean tolerating/accepting others, or being tolerated/accepted by others- how should or does this make a difference? I might be insulted at the notion that someone is "tolerating" me, but I can't fairly say that there aren't situations in which I tend to take a somewhat sanctimonious postion towards another opinion. In a sense, I suppose tolerance could be a mutual threat: "I disagree with you and you with me, and as long as we understand this I am willing to peacefully coexist with you, but once you threaten my right to practice my beliefs.... etc." Whereas acceptance as "assent to situational reality" could also be positive or negative; in a way it might open beneficial dialogue, but it could also connote resigning oneself to mistreatment.
|
|
|
Post by aclockworkireland on Oct 29, 2013 18:49:52 GMT -8
"Evil exists because good people do nothing."
Acceptance by far. I accept peoples differences but I am discriminating. I do have personal beliefs and I do find some things unacceptable.
I would say that if I tolerated things that I consider unacceptable I would be a dishonest and cowardly person. I prefer to be honest. If I couldnt make the choice to atleast walk away from the things I considered abhorrant Id end up standing there lying, smiling and nodding while being secretly angry. That type of two facedness is a disgrace in my opinion.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being assertive. We shouldnt be ashamed of what we feel and think and it shouldnt be a shame to air what we feel and think publically. It should be expected that we do those things so we are all equal and any mistaken beliefs or preconceptions can be aired and resolved within society.
|
|
|
Post by lyradora on Oct 30, 2013 8:50:47 GMT -8
From Wikipedia: "Acceptance in human psychology is a person's assent to the reality of a situation, recognizing a process or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit." "Tolerance or toleration is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry." Wow. I guess I need to consult a dictionary. I personally would have flipped those two definitions. Acceptance (to me) is whole-hearted and unbigoted. Tolerance makes due, though sometimes grudgingly, with the situation as it is. Therein may be part of the problem. I think the definitions of "acceptance" and "tolerance" are evolving, and are different for different people in different geographical areas.
|
|
lily
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by lily on Oct 30, 2013 9:59:59 GMT -8
I suppose that a way around the issue of evolving language and differing meanings might be to talk about welcoming people of diverse faiths rather than accepting or tolerating them. I would also have switched wikipedia's definitions of acceptance and tolerance, but it's that kind of thing that can lead to divisive misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by moonwolf23 on Oct 30, 2013 11:44:59 GMT -8
Here are websters links. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acceptance www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toleranceFrom Wikipedia: "Acceptance in human psychology is a person's assent to the reality of a situation, recognizing a process or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit." "Tolerance or toleration is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry." Wow. I guess I need to consult a dictionary. I personally would have flipped those two definitions. Acceptance (to me) is whole-hearted and unbigoted. Tolerance makes due, though sometimes grudgingly, with the situation as it is. Therein may be part of the problem. I think the definitions of "acceptance" and "tolerance" are evolving, and are different for different people in different geographical areas.
|
|