In trying to explore the flip side of tolerance, I thought to distinguish the definitions of tolerance and intolerance. In viewing "intolerant," I noted this definition: not able or unwilling to accept or embrace a concept.
I wish to consider these two elements 1) inability and 2) unwillingness. In the modern quest for "Toleration," we seem to ignore both. The novel notion of undiscriminating acceptance loses the discernment that refusal to accept is based on pre-conceptions. Examination of these pre-conceptions is reduced to declarations of such views as "hateful" or "evil." The natural mode of tolerance would at least have the curiosity that would inquire as to the perceived intolerance. "Why are you against ... " is a legitimate inquiry to ones opinion and the bases of the opinion, especially if proven as fact.
Thus intolerance can be an inability. Those who are called homophobic explain their position as Scriptural. To insist on one abandoning ideas that are deemed sacred would be ... well, call it what it is. Intolerance. Thus intolerance can be to a certain degree based on unwillingness. To insist on political and cultural changes in the name of progressive advance thinks little of matters of conscience. To demand willingness is coercion, high-handed, totalitarian activities worthy of thugs.
This is why the prospects of political correct default positions have dim hopes of foundational change in the lines of toleration. Gun violence is becoming rampant, and it could well be based on the overt demands of accepting change against ones abilities and volitions. When push comes to shove, we may have unwittingly sown the seeds of Intolerance in a campaign to produce a more tolerant society.
The irony is tragic, sad to think in a world that would have irony for their comedies.
No comments:
Post a Comment