Tolerance is a parasite

Tolerance is only the positive expression of a lack, the lack of being able or knowing that you can structure your life and relations in precisely the way which suits your needs/goals and benefits you the most.

We tolerate only what we do not have power over. Making tolerance a virtue in modern Christian society only means the modern human is devoid of self, is unable to exercise his goals and intentions upon his life.

Tolerance as a virtue is a meme-virus and a parasite that spreads to and from people with weak psychological immune systems, making them weaker as time goes on and thus increasing dependence on the parasite. Like a knot drawing ever-tighter, there is no escape.

Tolerance is for truce.
Tolerate the difference because there is a no win way sitting there between the two or more. So call a truce.

Easy on the Nietzsche, there, it’s heady stuff :wink:

A far sharper argument is that tolerance can only be afforded by those powerful enough to permit it; the intolerant are so precarious in their control that they have to fight every fight, to stamp whatever authority they can muster, and lack the personal security, the broad shoulders, that permits others their expression, that patronises and indulges their attempts at rebellion. Look at intolerant societies, they are intolerant of what they fear; the most intolerant are also frequently the poorest, with the most insecure governments held together by raw force. That’s the weakest, brittlest form of power there is. As a clear demonstration of this, observe how time after time tolerance gives way to intolerance as threats rise and confidence crumbles, not the other way around - it is granted, not surrendered. Violent revolutions, real changes in power structures, occur in oppressive or powerless states, Tsarist Russia or Kuomintang China.

I think your thesis takes a far too literal, simplistic view of power as being coercive and active. All yang and no yin, all youthful aggression and no strategic psychology. Power, real power as it is found and exercised in the world, is far more subtle. Tolerance sucks the fight from your opponent; I’m not scared of you, I’ll let you be as you want to be, and look at the good it will do you.

I like Žižek’s argument that tolerance is an insult.

e.g. I merely “tolerate” you.

However, until differences are settled, I condone it as a facilitator of co-operation, which is the primary strength of all the most powerful peoples in today’s world. Regardless of how obscene it is, it works.

I truly doubt this is true. I sincerely do not give a shit how other people dress themselves. Fashion, style. But for many people and organizations, there is Little tolerance for deviations from certain norms as far as clothing. I lack this obsession. If I had the Power of the Emporer of the World and could Point to anyone and have them sent to dungeons, and everyone on Earth would do my bidding instantly and gratefully…I would still tolerate people wearing whatever the hell they wanted to wear unless it made a high pitched screaming noise and they were near me and the like. I lack a number of other obsessions people have. This would mean I am tolerant in these areas. These also would not change if I had even deity level Power.

This is different from the lack the OP is talking about. I Think tolerance can often be an insult + self-compliment. Even though you are [bad, disgusting, immoral, distasteful, evil, annoying, taking up too much space] I am grand enough to allow you to, and perhaps not even mention what I really Think of you. But it seems to me tolerance is often something like ‘not giving a shit about certain things’ or ‘not getting caught up in strange rationalizations’.

Tolerance as the OB suggests is being misused with sweeping generality. Tolerance afforded differs from tolerance accorded. Tolerance accorded to someone loved, admired and supported, is different from that afforded to people remote, or/and of questionable disposition. And by the same token, the response of the recipients may also vary widely.

Power and memes aye? Tell me more about power and memes.

Tolerance is what people do when they want to act in a humane way toward one another. You may not realize it, but you are probably the beneficiary of quite a bit of it in the world.

Tolerance is coerced or enforced by an authority. It never comes on its own.

There is no tolerance for intolerance, but they’ll force you to tolerate things by intolerant methods of getting you to obey.

In the corporate world even minor variations in dress, how one talks about one’s emotions, how one behaves in general are nto tolerated. Are you saying that you also do not tolerate minor variations in the way people dress or talk about emotions or varieties of behavior just like the corporate world? Or do you, actually, not give a shit about a lot of things?

There are forms of tolerance that are taught, where one is supposed to suppress one’s reactions. But then there are all sorts of intolerance that are taught also. Do you understand the difference?

I find the opposite also. There is not tolerance for tolerance and if you do not get uproared about a lot of trivial stuff, you are as fucked up as the people they think are fucked up for not being ‘normal’.

My tolerance was not trained.

I don’t think you’ll find any example, anywhere, of any behavior that couldn’t fit right into the old, “it was coerced” argument. Unfortunately, this means that referring to one action as being that type, actually says almost nothing. It does nothing to distinguish that one action from all the other ones. Because there’s some kind of coercion behind everything.

Same with governments and all forms of authority down to the organized church. Ever seen anybody arrested for making a indecent spectacle in public? I have.

Our entire lives are regulated by various authorities in collusion stance on decency all in the name of tolerance which is nothing but a code word for total submission to their mental will. Also, in this instance I am only talking about specific forms of enforced tolerance by an authority. Personal choices of tolerance not included.

Authority creates channels of what they deem to be acceptable forms of intolerance, but if there is intolerance not to its liking it finds a way of swaying people through various means of coercion to see things its way. Maybe we can call this controlled forms of acceptable forms of intolerance.

Human beings are retarded conformists.
You look one way they make all kinds of assumptions.

If you are immune to something you don’t need to destroy it, and can tolerate it, in favor of using your energy on something more important, however, I consider tolerance of allot of crap to be a form of personal weakness where you cannot act out your desires and preferances on the world, cutting the crap, so to speak. Really tolerant people are against the death penalty for example.

Moral manipulation.

Agreed.

When something gets so decadently out of control I feel it is one’s duty to destroy it.

So called tolerant people are usually the most intolerant of them all.

Yes.

When people are young, they start out fairly neutral in their human nature. But they also absorb and immitate. Propaganda and religion effect this human neutrality, turning the neutral into the opinionated. They start out amoral, or slightly moral, then the moral extremists try to claim the people for more political power. Back in ancient history when religions were still forming, people had more will. There were more sages and prophets. Now there is just these mellow passive people that eat what ever you put in front of them. They are more tolerant today than they were hundreds of years ago too. Some people think that is a good thing. I don’t.

Especially generation Disney as I like to call them. The twenty three and younger crowd or generation Y. [Shutters]

MechanicalMonster

There doesn’t appear to be anything positive about that - it seems to be more describing resignation to something or impotence. The second part of that speaks to autonomy.

.
Ourselves included. :evilfun:

Tolerance as a form of respect and awareness for who the other person is because we know who we are - is not necessarily exclusive of one who is autonomous.

I think that it all comes down to the “individual” and his purpose and intent. If it’s based on higher, right reasoning, then one can say it’s a virtue but if it’s simply based on a lack of will and impotency, it can lead to masochism and self destruction.
But at the same time, intolerance can lead to sadism and the destruction of races. Perhaps intolerance is a form of apathy and I do not here mean proper detachment.