the concept of Tolerance was created by man in order to avoid conflicts in situations where you should not apply a total act of retaliation over a partial act of guilt so it is working like a kind of balance between facts. ( you can't be intolerant to an idea )

- how would you manifest your intolerance over an idea ? - because over a fact you can take action. ( idea is just an abstraction of the fact, it's a mental construct or projection in our minds ) think of it like the idea of a building and the building itself ( they are totally different )

I agree that you can’t be tolerant to an idea. I think of tolerance as a scale, a measure of how much deviant behaviour you’re willing to put up with. Ideas can fall into the area of one’s intolerant part of the scale.

With ideas it’s most important to extensively outline the consequences of it. What we see happening now is more and more ideas [progressive ideas] many of which most people used to be intolerant to - become actions, tolerated actions. I’m very interested in this shift, but mostly worry about it tbh. For example, women were given the right to vote around 100 years ago. There was a hard fought struggle, but “we” made it. Where are certain groups of people fighting for today? We’ve got LGBT rights (most of it), we’ve got quite a lot of religious tolerance.. and what I’m seeing in the most frontrunning progressive media outlets now (which are basically a glimpse of the future if we continue our social and cultural developments like this) is for example pedophilia. Now it’s mostly discussed as an idea and the “pedophiles” are seen as a group whose ‘rights’ are currently not recognised. When the idea of pedophilia is turned into action, one can see the most horrible, evil things happening we now know. I think that over 90% of people would agree with me on this. However.. the same thing was said about homophilia a couple of decades ago.

There’s two points that concern me.
First, when discussing ideas which are currently being discussed as to whether they’re tolerable or not, we must consider what happens when they become actions. What actually happens to the peoples involved and society as a whole? Ideas often have a more romantic feel to them, while actions display hidden bitter truths.
Second, where does this end? It seems to me that many have become blinded by the idea that we must be tolerant. And that we all eventually will be. Where is our line in the sand? Are we going to draw one that actually holds and can thus also be applied in the future?

No, we should not be tolerant. But that is because there simply is no virtue in tolerance. Putting up with things while you inwardly rage, which is all that tolerance amounts to, is good for nobody least of all yourself. Tolerance is really cognitive dissonance nowhere better illustrated than in those who prize it seeing no obvious problem with making "Tolerance will not be tolerated" their motto!

hat I’m seeing in the most frontrunning progressive media outlets now (which are basically a glimpse of the future if we continue our social and cultural developments like this) is for example pedophilia. — Linda

I find this very difficult to believe. Have you any actual examples?

Take for example this article on Salon:
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

Salon is a populair, progressive website with about 11 million unique visitors a month ( https://www.quantcast.com/salon.com#trafficCard )

What stood out to me in this article was the tone. Being a pedophile is being described as something that in fact victimises the person in question. Also, notice the links being made to 'being gay'.

I'm aware that what I'm trying to get across might seem a little far-fetched or frightening, but I'm thinking about it in a bigger picture. In the ongoing 'struggle' for tolerance and rights for certain groups. Please note, I have absolutely nothing against people living their life without harming anyone. I just think it's important to think about the longterm consequences of the changes that are being pushed.

We’ve got LGBT rights (most of it), we’ve got quite a lot of religious tolerance.. and what I’m seeing in the most frontrunning progressive media outlets now (which are basically a glimpse of the future if we continue our social and cultural developments like this) is for example pedophilia. Now it’s mostly discussed as an idea and the “pedophiles” are seen as a group whose ‘rights’ are currently not recognised. — Linda

in the current state and direction pedophiles will have rights too in a decade or so. Everyone will be allowed to rape a minor ( a few times legally - then it becomes illegal ) this could be a tolerant act of law regarding this subject.

But your concerns are totally valid and the direction we're headed to is pretty clear today. The majority of people are uneducated and mentally ill ( as in deficient thinking according to reality - like a wrong behavior in a clearly stated framework of behaviors ). They live in illusions and the mind plays tricks on them too.

Until we realize what we are, we can never become anything.
We will just run around in circles repeating the same mistakes over and over again until salvation or total destruction.

Until we realise what we are, we can never become anything. - 100% Agreed! I think the problem is the biggest within my generation (the spoiled, unaware millennials). We have no idea where we came from, and are only focused on where we’re going — which is not specified; the only way is forward.

How do you think we can make ourselves more aware of who we are? How can we get people to realise that the acceptance of certain acts or rights can/will eventually be our downfall? Again, this may sound somewhat pessimistic, but when you think about it.. A culture can only exist and survive when it’s well aware of its history and traits.

I see a diminishing of this in Western / liberal culture but an uprising in Islamic culture - which is increasing itself in the West. I have many muslim and Middle-Eastern friends, and I see a certain pride in their eyes when they talk about their culture and religion. Good for them, but consider the demise of Western culture.. Our culture and worldview is shifting - rapidly. If we don’t find out what makes us, us, and make people aware of that, we will lose our way of living and culture.

If you are lost in the woods while you are running what do you do? The first thing to do is stop, and realize where you are, grasp the surroundings and go from there - have a starting point and you can make a decision and create a projection of the destination you wanna reach.

But in daily life
, since day 1, constantly becoming, but NEVER knowing what we are.
And we are lost in this becoming forever because it never ends, because there is no destination and we will never make it out of the woods because we are simply running after an exist but never stopping to see where we are actually, so in this race we will be lost and doomed slowly.

The 1st problem of mankind if I can say is: EVERYONE wants his RIGHTS but NO ONE EVER talks about his responsibilities after being alive.
We should radically change the entire practice of living.
We should assign certain default responsibilities to every human being on Earth.Because when you are responsible for something you act with great care and empathy.

So for me that would be the 1st step.

As you said "radically change the entire practice of living" - today that would require a revolution. Both in a political sense and in our consciousness. I think this is partially already happening. You can see it in the nationalist and culture-aware movements. These movements can form a great vehicle for bringing awareness to the bigger crowds.

So you wouldn't urge tolerance if a white nationalist was barely concealing his rage against the brown foreigner who just moved in next door?

is just an illusion, there is no revolution taking place.

It is just humans getting more and more distracted, having access to millions of distractions each day.
As long as we don't understand what pleasure is and the pursuit of it, what desire is, what fear is and how it can end, and all the other important aspects of life, there is no better tomorrow.

Today people are too cowards to express their minds and say what they think, because of the fear of being ridiculized or misjudged, and they go with the only possible solution that we know and feel, that is Ignorance

Hmm, is that what I said? I really don't think it was!

It's not "what you said", it's a consequence of what you said. If we should not be tolerant, then the white nationalist should not be tolerant of his brown neighbor who just moved in next door. If it were good for nobody, explain how it's not good for the brown guy next door if it's the only thing that's keeping him from being a victim of racism.

I'll ask you again, would you, or would you not, urge tolerance if a white nationalist was barely concealing his rage against the brown foreigner who just moved in next door?

If you want the answer in those bald terms then, no. Absolutely not. It would do far more harm than good - actually it would do no good at all!

You wouldn't ask him to be tolerant?

Is there some new alternative meaning for the word 'no' of which I've not been made aware?

I'm just making sure I understand you before I fully commit myself to abject despair.

If the only thing that would prevent a racist from assaulting an innocent person was you saying to him, listen mate, he's not a bad bloke just be a bit more tolerant, you actually think it would do less harm to say nothing and let him kick his head in for being a different colour?

Please bear in mind that everyone can read what you're saying.

Sorry but I have to comment on that last line.. "Please bear in mind that everyone can read what you're saying." - that is exactly one of the biggest problems in our society these days. No privacy, public shaming, bullying (calling someone racist etc.) - this all causes people to censor themselves and that is not only harmful for a discussion, it's also very dangerous.

spot on

:)
Btw, I think that the revolution is already happening. It's been simmering for quite some years and with all the distractions also come new opportunities such as alternative media. Ignorance is declining as the people are waking up. Less and less people are trusting mainstream media - which never discusses the real issues and is providing most news with a false narrative. The problem is that we need more people wake up and above all to speak out.

But it's not going to stop him! That's the whole point. It might get both our heads kicked in as his resentment transfers itself to me for lecturing him from my ivory tower but it won't change a damn thing in his mindset. If the law won't stop him what makes you think that anything less has a hope in hell?

You've pretty much encapsulated everything that's wrong with the 'tolerance movement' today. As if it is possible to scold people into abandoning their mindset or make them better like some kind of missionary sent from God (or Queen Victoria - it's hard to tell the difference sometimes).

And what if we persuade him to be tolerant, to put up with it? Do you really think that's a long term solution, that there won't be more and more resentment building up as compromises are made day after day and he is forced to deny his true feelings? That's a recipe for powder kegs that are bound to explode with far worse consequences for everybody. That's what causes riots, fascist rallies and ultimately wars.

So no. The last thing I'm going to be doing is going around telling people to play let's pretend. Let's pretend that you're not unhappy, afraid, fuming. Let's pretend that you can just 'snap out of it' like a good little soldier. Let's pretend that avoiding problems and confrontations and misunderstandings and practising our stiff upper lip is a healthy way to live. Because that's what tolerance is!

In the five steps of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, tolerance is all of the first four and never the last. Regrettably pretty much every social reform movement that ever existed, none more so than the pc and professionally offended brigades of this age, has that totally arse about face. Which brings us back to your judgey, preachy 'despair' rather neatly. All you see in my original post is far from all that is there but you simply can't (or more likely won't) see further than the contradiction of the current dogma. Oh, the heresy!

A long, long time ago (and here's my despair) a black community leader in Bristol, just after a series of riots there, said that race would cease to be a problem in the UK when everybody finally stopped treating it as a problem. Those of us who understand what he meant have grown tired of waiting for it to happen knowing that counselling (let's face it, it's really attempting to coerce) tolerance is just another way of continuing to treat it as a problem.

im doing it for quite a while :)

me too! And political issues are so sensitive for some to talk about.. Many people won't even listen and just shut you out. I could ramble about this for hours lol

I generally tolerate all the stuff I can't do anything about, and all the stuff I can't be arsed to do anything about. Since I am extremely lazy and extremely weak, that means I'm extremely tolerant. But I do like to moan and pontificate about it all.

you're a darling :) I mean it

Sorry but I have to comment on that last line.. "Please bear in mind that everyone can read what you're saying." - that is exactly one of the biggest problems in our society these days. No privacy, public shaming, bullying (calling someone racist etc.) - this all causes people to censor themselves and that is not only harmful for a discussion, it's also very dangerous. — Linda

I think you've got a gripe with something that may or may not be a problem in society, but have jumped on what I've said in a case of mistaken identity. Privacy has nothing to do with anything here. He's put private thoughts onto a public forum. They're fair game. I've not bullied him, nor called him a racist - not even close. Neither have I called for someone to self-censor; only that he thinks about what he's saying before he commits to the position that there is more harm in tolerance than there is in someone being physically assaulted, as in my example. I gave him a chance to side with common sense.

It also sounds like in calling me out, you're trying to make me self-censor. Jeez, what a bigot.

But he decided to go ahead with a position which is clearly untenable to the point of being silly. He outright denies the possibility of my hypothetical even being valid, rather than admit that the tolerance it effects does have a helpful place in society (you're either tolerant or you're not). It's also proven by the fact that his longer response is full of non-sequiturs - not to mention some clearly built-up frustrations he's finally taking out on anything that looks even remotely like the nearest possible target - and self-serving conclusions as to what might happen if we exercise tolerance, all of which are purely his own logicless speculations.

If he had granted it's possibility, then he would have to concede the point that tolerance can be a good thing, in the right situations, if it prevents unnecessary harm, as opposed to it's never being so. His denial was clear when he said "that's not going to stop him!" It is perfectly possible that it might, and that is one situation where the value of tolerance would be evident. It is better to at least try to get each other to act tolerantly, because it might work. It might prevent real, actual harm (as opposed to this vague, invisible harm to society as a whole). Just because tolerance isn't enough or good in all situations, such as these riots you mentioned, does not mean that it isn't in any.

You show me supposed 'harm' in tolerance, and I'll show you the actual physical harm of intolerance. Here's an example: tolerance was what the UK had before the Brexit vote. Now, many people seem to think the vote gave them a green light to verbally and physically abuse anyone who isn't white with a British accent. These racists were always there, but they tolerated the 'Others', and it was working until the vote. That's now gone, and intolerance has taken its place. Literally, they will not tolerate people who are not white and speak with the right kind of accent. Racially motivated crimes are up by 41%.

If something does the job, I'll take it. It works until it stops working, and then you find something else.

I'm not part of this "tolerance movement" you seem to want to pick a fight with, either. Unless by that you mean simply wanting us all to make the effort to put aside whatever disagreements we have with the way other people harmlessly live their lives. How awful of me; I never considered the harm I was doing to people. What a prick I am.

consider the demise of Western culture.. Our culture and worldview is shifting - rapidly. If we don’t find out what makes us, us, and make people aware of that, we will lose our way of living and culture. — Linda

I'm inclined to agree - I think Western liberalism (I don't mean liberal in the American political sense, but the broad tradition of Western democratic, free-market, pluralistic liberalism that all Western countries have) is in some basic way undermining itself. So in that respect, I agree with some of the conservatives. (Although in the USA, in particular, political conservatism is associated with many ideas that I can't abide like gun rights, financial deregulation and corporatism.)

I think, basically, western culture has cut it own spiritual roots; I see scientific materialism as a major cause of that. I'm not advocating a return to some imagined golden past, because I don't think there was one, but I think a reconnection with the spiritual values fundamental to the Judeo-Christian tradition is badly needed: small-scale cultures, businesses, and communities, albeit still able to leverage the economies of scale that globalism provides.

The problem is that the dynamic of modern political economics is that it has to keep becoming something new every day. Nothing lasts. It's the so-called 'creative destruction of capitalism', and it's built into the very modes of living that the Western world now relies on. And I don't think it will change by any kind of enlightened free choice, I think more likely it will precipitate something massively destructive. And perhaps something new will come out of that, but don't hold your breath.

Tolerance stops when one harms another by any action.

The history of western democracy from the original Athenian democracy and Rome right up into modern times is people fighting for their freedom only to then turn around and sell it to the highest bidder. The more successful a democracy, the more assuredly it becomes an empire like the US which has a military equal to the next six or seven largest combined, ostensibly, all of "defense" purposes. Of course, we retain at least the symbolic vestiges of freedom so we can carry on the tradition. Conan O'Brien does a great comedy routine where he has his staff record hundreds of news channels where the talking heads all spout the same exact B.S. verbatim for the entertainment of the mindless masses who all insist that the government and mass media they call evil lie to them for their own protection.

Hence, the reason that the most advanced and integrated democracy in the world became Nazi Germany. Its sort of a schizophrenic way to organize a country but, again, it beats getting nothing. What the future holds is self-organizing systems that will make even western democracy appear tame in comparison.

What does it mean? When can one consider him- or herself as tolerant? And
should we (Western Europe, US) be 'tolerant' regarding the current
developments with immigration and multiculturalism? — Linda

"Willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviors that one does
not necessarily agree with" -- dictionary

Go back far enough up any branch of your family tree and you will always find
an immigrant, maybe even with a different culture than the ones practiced by
those who were there before you, even if the land was empty. Someone either
tolerated their presence, or were unwelcome invaders who ultimately established
productive roots.

I think one cannot name himself tolerant, because it's not black and white.
For instance, I would consider myself not very tolerant - meaning that my
"borders" or "line in the sand" will be crossed earlier than the one of my
friend. But until that border is crossed I am tolerant and after crossing
I'll be intolerant. Some people may have their border at gay marriage and
some will have it at transgender rights. — Linda

I think "line in the sand" is either an odd or fitting analogy. If you
actually drew a line in the sand, any strong wind will erase it. As for
borders, I thought they were a bit odd as they nearly disappear from a
distance. You go back far enough in history, and you will see that acceptance
of most things have fluctuated over time and distance.

Coming back to the question of whether 'we' should be tolerant.. Are we really
aware of the consequences that mainstream tolerance brings? I think the
current focus is too much on "we're tolerant" instead of "where is our line
in the sand". Shouldn't we think about this more before we make fundamental
changes to our society that may not be undone? — Linda

Yes, I think we have a long history of reaping the rewards of tolerance. You
could actually reduce it down to scientific and mathematical algorithms. Take
expected return, for
example. That is the value that can be expected, based on probability,
over the long run. Tolerance means accepting low risk in exchange for
the potential benefits. That shows why it isn't black and white, there is
an element of risk. Everything in life involves some acceptance of risk, but
we usually don't think about it. When we do, that risk seems emotionally
unacceptable, but if we objectively look at the benefits, it may be worth
considering. If I really thought about how many people die in car accidents
every day, I ought to never want to drive again -- but the benefits of being
able to travel around far outweighs the risk.

Where are certain groups of people fighting for today? We’ve got LGBT rights
(most of it), we’ve got quite a lot of religious tolerance.. and what I’m
seeing in the most frontrunning progressive media outlets now (which are
basically a glimpse of the future if we continue our social and cultural
developments like this) is for example pedophilia. Now it’s mostly discussed
as an idea and the “pedophiles” are seen as a group whose ‘rights’ are
currently not recognised. When the idea of pedophilia is turned into action,
one can see the most horrible, evil things happening we now know. I think that
over 90% of people would agree with me on this. However.. the same thing was
said about homophilia a couple of decades ago. — Linda

Maybe there is a different trend at work here. Progressives are moving toward
respect for rights and consent. Pedophilia is not at the end of that slippery
slope because it inherently means without consent as children can't consent.
When I was little, it was still okay to beat women and children, and now it
is no longer accepted. Doesn't that mean social tolerance is being reduced?

First, when discussing ideas which are currently being discussed as to whether
they’re tolerable or not, we must consider what happens when they become
actions. What actually happens to the peoples involved and society as a whole? — Linda

We have considered what happens. Marriage is apparently a good thing for
individuals and society. It decreases STDs and places an obligation of
financial and legal responsibility. Why would we block that benefit from
a portion of society? It seems the only cost here is a bit of discomfort
among some people. Actually, there was a time in Europe when only Catholics
could get married. The problems that caused among protestants lead to the
institution becoming secular.

Second, where does this end? It seems to me that many have become blinded by
the idea that we must be tolerant. And that we all eventually will be. Where
is our line in the sand? Are we going to draw one that actually holds and can
thus also be applied in the future? — Linda

Obviously, this ends when there is no more benefit to tolerating the
behavior. Currently the trend in progressiveness is toward more universal
acceptance of human rights. The benefits of human rights is a bit hard to
pin down.

How do you think we can make ourselves more aware of who we are? How can we
get people to realise that the acceptance of certain acts or rights can/will
eventually be our downfall? Again, this may sound somewhat pessimistic, but
when you think about it.. A culture can only exist and survive when it’s well
aware of its history and traits. — Linda

There is a psychological tendency to paint history as virtuous and beneficial.
Go back a few centuries and there are a lot of real horror stories. Things
like slavery, proverty, disease and raw sewage. Those paragons of virtue from
our history books engaged in all of that, even gay and child sex. You can
also see the real causes of social downfalls isn't usually due to inability
to tolerate changes, but inability to adapt to them.

- that is exactly one of the biggest problems in our society these days.
No privacy, public shaming, bullying (calling someone racist etc.) - this all
causes people to censor themselves and that is not only harmful for a
discussion, it's also very dangerous. — Linda

This is very new feature of society. When I was a kid, it was very hard to
say anything and be heard. Maybe you could write a letter to the editor and
hope it gets published in a newspaper. Now you have the greatest communication
and socialization invention in history and you want to complain about how your
ideas aren't accepted? Those ideas were always there, and some of them were
probably more accepted than today. You could get away with saying a lot of
racists things in the past, mostly because those ideas were shared by the
dominant culture of the time. What is really seems to be annoying is that
some of the ideas we used to tolerate, which were damaging to society, (like
racism and sexism), are on a footing of equality with the rest of the world
and there is no more protection from dominant societies and societies can no
longer dominate or have to submit to each other.