The fact that "tolerance" is the 21st century's great social goal is sad and backwards. All the social movements of the past asked for fundamental systematic changes, not tolerance. Asking for "tolerance" is admitting defeat.
It's very sad. "We need to be more tolerant." No. We need to be more loving.
But they aren't asking for tolerance, or giving it.
Not at all. Tolerance wasn't the main goal in the past bc groups were so homogenous that assimilation was the goal. Tolerance is a goal now because it's ok for people to be who they are, ie not assimilate...
My big problem is that to be "tolerant" of another culture, race, gender, sexuality etc. just means that you are suppressing your hatred for that group. It doesn't mean that you are actively trying to destroy whatever reactionary tendencies you
I agree tolerance is not acceptance but as people gain exposure to differences, we accept them. You can't force acceptance but you can allow it to grow over time... King was smart. He knew that change takes time.
It's really sad how most of mlk's people have disregarded, even flat out ignored his message. Furguson is a prime example.
Yep... For years, it was a bad example and many groups own it, especially the white folks to institutionalized their hatred.
It is a goal, but it isn't necessarily the end goal. Just a baby step along the way. Considering how far short we fall of even that one small thing, maybe the whole thing really is too much to do all at once.
I feel like tolerance is the opium of progress. People should look for where tolerance is needed, and destroy whatever creates the need for tolerance. Trying to build tolerance just sublimates the problem, makes it harder to solve in the long run.
At a time when some are publicly suggesting that a "No Coloreds" sign in the window, except changed to LGBT, makes any level of despicable behavior OK, I think tolerance might be a huge step for this herd. Of race or any other differentiator.
Yeah good point lol. Tolerance, I suppose, isn't an inherently bad thing- but I think it should take the back seat to finding "root of the problem" solutions. As in, after a systematic change occurs and there's still some reactionary straglers-
We better go ahead and tell Cletus to "chill out and be a little more tolerant." But if tolerance takes the front seat it just means that the real problem is going to simmer for a while longer.
Yeah, I really don't see it as an inhibitor, just a step in the right direction.
Well said Zoe
Zod... Auto correct doesn't like your name. Zoe and Did both popped up.
Imagine MLK saying: "what we want is for whites to be more tolerant of blacks." It's ridiculous.