Tolerance... or talk no more?

'Tolerance' is a buzz word all have confronted. It is an all-pervasive notion that dominates all debate on meaningful questions. However, its domination tends not to aid the fruitfulness of meaningful discussion. To the contrary, it ever so often is the trump card that stifles truth from being seen and recognized.

"Shutup! Don't try and impose your views on everyone!"

"Look, that's just one perspective, but don't push it. Tolerate others!"

"Look you're not 'right' - because we all have different opinions!"

...We are all familiar with such attempts at justification. However, what is really going on is no justification. The call to 'tolerance' is simply a way of attempting to silence a contrary (and oftentimes more reasonable) position. And we can conclude the contrary position is often more reasonable precisely because there are appeals to reasons to back it up. Whereas, the side that resorts to the 'tolerance card' is displaying an inability to offer reasons - instead, there is the sly attempt to shut the discussion down. Deep down, it is none other than a refusal to be confronted with the truth. It is none other than an attempt to tighten the blindfold or push one's head deeper in the sand.

Even proponents of clearly recognisable heinous views - i.e.: it is okay to rape, or murder - could back up their case by appealing for 'tolerance' and 'respect' to their 'personal view'. And if 'tolerance' is sufficient for making an opinion worthy of respect, then such views also must be given respect. However, it is more reasonable to suppose that the reasons making such things wrong are what counts. Whereas the appeal to 'tolerance' is simply not relevant.

It is most often those taking a 'progressive' or 'liberal' stance on vital questions that use 'tolerance' as a 'trump card'. And so it seems, on the outset, that such stances tend to be plagued by falsehoods, and the consequent unwillingness to be confronted with truth.

However, the ultimate insanity of the 'tolerance card' is this. Such appeals to 'tolerance' are by their nature utterly intolerant. This is because they all involve a direct command (and so, the contrary of the command being intolerable in some sense) to act (or not act) in a certain way. That is, for the other side to refrain from highlighting (what is often) a more logical outlook on things. And so, the audacious appeal to 'tolerate', is based on intolerance for the actions (and views) of those putting forth (and sticking to) a more reasonable position.


The one trying to point out reality is intolerant towards destructive falsehoods. The one who puts their head in the sand is intolerant to reality. There is no such thing as 'pure tolerance'; because any assertion implies favouring that assertion (and consequently, not having equal tolerance to the other assertion). Therefore, no one can ever truly assert 'tolerance', because the very assertion implies its opposite (intolerance). And so the fact is: all will be 'intolerant' in their own way; the only question is whether the intolerance is in the service of sanity or not.