I've been thinking recently about the idea of Tolerance.
Tolerance. Is it really enough? I mean, what is it really saying? That it's ok to be different, right? I don't think so.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a genuinly good-intentioned movement towards progess, however, I just think that it's doomed to fail because it does nothing to solve the problems of prejudice. Tolerance basically encourages an uneducated apathy toward cultures/religions/etc. different from one's own, allowing any preexisting prejudiceses to continue uncontested, as if to say "It's ok for you to hate other people because they're different, just don't act on it." Thus, what Tolerance ultimately ends up doing is proliferating the tolerance of bigotry.
I would much rather see a program that seeks to educate people to the diversity of the world. If people bothered to actually understand the different points of view of others, then the end of bigotry would not be far behind.
Really, would you rather be Tolerated? or Accepted?
Inspiration for this blog came from here: http://www.progressiveu.org/102152-what-is-tolerance
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree with you.
You are assuming a certain definition of tolerance. You can be tolerant of people who think, act, and are different from you without it being a negative thing.
Tolerance alone can simply mean inaction against such a thing you yourself do not participate in.
You are referring more to a grudging intolerance.
And hating someone internally is NOT tolerance. It's the very opposite in reality. It doesn't matter that it is not physically acted on, they are being mentally intolerant.
I'm not saying Tolerance is a bad thing, and I certainly don't deny any positive effects it's encouragment has had on society, I just don't think it does enough to end prejudice.
i would rather be accepted, but if tolerance is my only choice, i prefer that to disrespect