"Tolerance" doesn't guarantee "acceptance" any more than "legal" guarantees "ethical." I see "tolerance" as a smile over gritted teeth, while "acceptance" is a relaxed smile and a nod. I see "tolerance" as a euphemism for "I'll pretend to like you if you pretend to like me." I see "acceptance" as a heartfelt "It's so nice to know you and learn from you."
To tolerate someone is to put up with them. To accept them is to connect with them.
We need to abandon "tolerance" as a loosely disguised term for politically correct civility; a phony, self-righteous word for people who wish to appear open-minded and loving to their fellow human beings; and an erroneous synonym for acceptance. We need to use words honestly.
While I agree that tolerance can sometimes mean begrudging acceptance, I would argue that it is a necessary condition for liberty, as we aren't always going to agree on what's acceptable and what isn't. In fact, I just to to bed this week's column for the Chieftain on just this subject, here's a sampling:
ReplyDelete"In short, what may be politically incorrect today may, become a classic tomorrow, begging the question, how do we know the difference? The answer: we don’t. We simply must let Lady Liberty and Father Time be the judges. Those with liberty must be responsible. And those offended by how those liberties are sometimes expressed, must be tolerant. And if you’re not how this works on a practical level, heed the words of Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins”."