Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

16-4 Tolerance

Tolerance was explained as the action we take when mentally and politely dismissing something so we do not have to fully deal with it. It is not accepting or ignoring a situation or view we disagree with. We tolerate things we do not support. Sarah Palin mentioned her view on gay marriage as not agreeing with it but she tolerates it.

It goes against the concept of equality, cosmopolitanism and acceptance. I found this poster that kind of disturbed me. It made me realize we may be confused by the term "tolerance."





When I analyze this I think someone may have had the right intentions BUT the message of equality is not being translated properly. I think this is how we tend to view tolerance. It's seen as a polite way of coexisting, and accepting our differences. One of the floaters said she saw tolerance as a form of respect because you value the person enough to put forth the effort of trying to accept it for whatever it is. However, it is the opposite of polite and respect because it is how we counteract a negative feeling. This in itself is still a negative because by not embracing the differences, we dismiss them from our scope of positivity and "deal with it."

The actual definition of tolerance is better represented by:


This unpleasant photo is the representation of everything we wish to dismiss but allow to still express itself. We do not stop it. We limit our engagement with the subject, and we cope with it from an emotional distance. 

Tolerance is our capacity to endure. When we decide we are "tolerating"something we are also stating that there is a point where we will quit dealing with it. Once that line is crossed then we are no longer acknowledging it or we begin expressing our opposition and take action.

Tolerance is a fuzzy spot between right and wrong because when we can not accept someones practices, and we understand it is wrong for us to try to stop them, this is the proper alternative. We do not have to believe everybody's actions or beliefs, but it is not up to us to control others. We tolerate when we do not give up, and we tolerate when we have hope for better. Tolerating is necessary to co-exist, and I believe that this is an equally positive and negative action.

2 comments:

  1. Alison Bates8:15 AM CST

    I don't want someone to tolerate my lifestyle, I want them to respect it. If you can respect someone's racial identity, or their religion, why must respecting a person's gender and/or sexual orientation be any different? It disturbs, but does not surprise, me that a high profile politician, though she is not alone, would make a comment saying that she tolerates a group of people. Most people who say they "tolerate" something really mean they'll turn a blind eye and not confront the situation.
    Tolerance is capable of being broken, especially if someone feels threatened.When I was living in Chicago, a group of college males, who attended the same private, Catholic University as I did, drunkingly attacked a gay person riding the L train at night. They felt "threatened" by the man's sexuality. If I'm supposed to respect your religious beliefs or your racial background, which I do and will, I expect to be more than tolerated in this "modern" society that we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jade Underland (16-4)12:13 AM CST

    Great point Alison, I agree. Tolerance is a nice word compared to negative words but it is not good enough. People do not need to be tolerated, they need too be accepted. Life is hard enough, I don't understand why people make it so much harder and I can not understand when people claim they know what is right for everyone.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.