Tolerance of views you do not agree with.

Post Reply New Topic

Definitely, and that's why I am specifically referring to convictions, or at least very strong opinions. Those ones where you feel sure your opinion is fact. If that's the case, it makes sense to argue your view when the opportunity arises, rather than saying that others are welcome to believe something different (and therefore incorrect). If your opinion is not a strong one (like nearly all of mine) then it makes sense to tolerate and/or welcome other viewpoints, so you can learn and potentially change your mind. When I hear people say "everyone is entitled to their own opinion/belief", I take that as meaning that their own opinion/belief is not strongly held. But I think a lot of people use those statements even when they truly think they are right and the others are wrong, and that's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

This is a very good question, yellow.

I have no answer for it, but I think it relates tangentially to three issues I perceive some people to have:

1. A general lack of conviction due to cultural training that tolerance and "civility" is more important than one's inner beliefs and values.

2. An incapacity for self-reflection, and thus a lack of not just interest but ability to develop coherent and defensible worldviews

3. A lack of empathy and thus regard for others and what they believe. We do not teach those we do not care about. And so agreeing to disagree is often a thinly veiled statement that the speaker doesn't really care what you think, so they don't see any benefit to correcting you.

I sense I'd be more interested in meeting people if I had a better handle on this question, since I frankly have a difficult time speaking with people who don't seem to care about their own beliefs enough to develop any. It's weird.

Tag.

(And I should note that one reason I like this forum is because autism spectrum people nearly by definition tend to have a well-developed set of inner beliefs and values due to the forced or voluntary introspection.)

(And none of this is to say that tolerance can't itself be a value. Just that tolerance as an end to itself is an opponent of morality, self-actualization, and cultural viability. To accept everything we have to discard everything.)

Yes it is, but it is not original with me.

ruveyn

OK, I'm going to be pedantic here and dissect this a bit. It depends on what people really mean when they say "everyone is entitled to their opinion". (Most of the time they really don't mean anything by it at all, but that aside...)

If they mean it literally, like I would, then it's about personal rights, not opinions. It's about a person's right to their own mind, for lack of a better term. You are not being tolerant of the opinion "that is clearly wrong", only of the person's right to hold that opinion. I think respect for that right is extremely important and the right must be unconditional. Consider the alternative. If a person's entitlement to hold some opinion is conditional then what is it conditional on? More importantly, who determines whether the condition is met? There is really no way it could work and what you get is people (NT people ) saying stuff like "but you MUST agree with me, because I'M RIGHT" - "why?" - "because I KNOW I am".

Taken less literally, it could mean "I would tolerate the person and continue to interact with them, despite the fact that they hold this opinion" or even "I would not think any less of them because they hold this opinion". In that sense it's not about their rights, but about my own opinion (of them and their opinion). How tolerant I would be then depends on the specific opinion. If it was something totally ridiculous and baseless then no, I would not tolerate it (in this sense) and I would not tell them it's OK, but nor would I feel that I have some kind of entitlement to tell them what to do "because they're wrong and I'm right". Yes, of course I'd believe they're "wrong" and I am as entitled to that as they are to their opinion (in the literal sense), so there is no reason I should pretend otherwise. Having said that, I wouldn't be as quick as most people to dismiss an apparently-wrong opinion. Hey, I have nothing against unicorns - only baseless unicorns!

How is it wrong to be intolerant of the intolerant? If someone is a racist, should I blithely believe that that person's beliefs are acceptable? How about if someone is homophobic? Or has some unreasonable religious prejudice? Sure, they can believe or say what they want, but I don't have to like it, and I don't have to let it go unchallenged.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

you're right that people who believe strongly in A will atleast claim that those who adhere to B have 'a right to their opinion'. They are not saying 'im not sure what the answer is so others might be right". They are saying "im right' but we live in a democracy so "you who are dead wrong have the right to be wrong."



The reason is that we live in a democracy. Democracy depends upon free speech. Thus the saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Hense the famous/notorious situation in which the neo nazi's staged a parade in the largely jewish community of Skokie Illinois around 1980. The Nazi's were defended by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU defending them because even people who express belief in a creed that is opposed to civil liberties ( like Naziism) have the civil liberty of expressing that belief in a democracy. Thats the paradox of free speech-that even those who are opposed to free speech have the right of free speech to express their opinion. And those who are for free speech have to tolerate the speech of those who advocate against free speech.

I would go a step farther than mere tolerance.

I accept that there are views that I disagree with. I truly believe that the price of my freedom to live my life as I choose is to accept that other people are going to live their lives in ways that I would be completely opposed to.

Now, in so far as that is concerned, that's the easy part. If you want to go to church and call me a sinner, fill your boots, it doesn't touch my life at all.

But now we get to a harder part: What do we say about the people who get affected by our freedom. I may accept that you will go to church and call me a sinner. But will I also accept that you take your child there and teach your child to do the same? I may accept that you believe that you can live in a colony with plural wives. But will I accept that you can take a child bride as one of them?

And then we get to the hardest part: Who gets to make the rules that draw the line between what is permissible and what is prohibited?

What I argue for--fairly consistently, I hope--is a move away from partisanship and extremism to moderation. Always look at the other side of the argument--especially when the bandwagon is overloaded on one side. That's not to say that anyone on the bandwagon is wrong--but rather than there are other points of view that may be equally valid.

The sooner that we all come to the realization that there is no absolute right and wrong, the sooner we might be better able to start to work cooperatively.

I don't really have a problem with people that are mildly-racist or homophobic as long as they don't talk about it very much. One reason I don't like the Republican Party is because they're big fans of "old white guys". lol