On tolerance

Tolerance, in its first definition: a fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

One might read this definition and think all's well with the world. "We should all be tolerant!" one might exclaim.

I, however, have a problem with this definition. I do not understand how one can be fair and permissive. I also have trouble comprehending how one can have an "objective attitude". An attitude is a completely personal, it is a disposition towards something. It may be "good", it may be "open-minded" but I have trouble imagining how it can be objective. But this is the least of my worries. I have a lot more of an issue with a person having "a fair and permissive attitude".

Fair: treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination. (I have problems with this definition too, I cannot treat people equally if I want to treat them fairly: I cannot treat the victim of an attack the same way as I treat the perpetrator, it would not be fair. It would be different if the definition specified "treating people who are in the same situation equally without favouritism or discrimination).

Permissive: allowing or characterised by excessive freedom of behaviour.

So. How can you have an attitude that is at the same time "equalitarian without favouritism or discrimination" and "characterised by excessive freedom of behaviour"?

You're either fair (and you treat everyone equally, and if there is some sort of morals or justice it holds everyone accountable for their actions in the same way) or you are permissive (and you allow people excessive freedom and you don't make them accountable). Fairness and permissiveness don't mix.

But my other thoughts have to do with this "permissive"part of tolerance. Tolerance has been touted as a banner for acceptance of "other cultures" in the west (this is important, even today, in the west, we consider our culture the culture, and everyone else's "other cultures"), and it has been waved so violently that to say you did not agree with a practice that came from a different culture marked you as intolerant. I agree with this. That isn't a problem in itself. The problem is that being called intolerant was, for some time, equivalent with being set in your ways, with being racist, with being xenophobic, with being unwelcoming.

Well, here's the thing. I am intolerant. I am intolerant of things that I consider unfair. I am intolerant of things I consider to be bad, to be harmful, to be denigrating to human beings, to be humiliating. Take this as you will, but essentially what I mean by this is that if you consider it part of your culture to hit other people if they disagree with you, then I am going to be intolerant of your culture. Or at least of that part of your culture.

And this goes for everyone. If there is something in the way you think that I feel is wrong, I will tell you. If I think you are unfair, or mean, or a downright brutal person because of a praxis you uphold, I will tell you, and more than that, I will fight you if I can. And if you think something I do is wrong, or brutal, or cruel, or unfair, I hope you will tell me. And I hope you will fight me.

Now, let me be clear. I am respectful of other people. I believe people have a right to their own bodies and to their own minds, meaning that they can have their own opinions and expose their bodies to what they like. What I will not accept is the imposition of those practices on other people.

People have been too tolerant for too long, because being intolerant was seen as a negative. There is nothing wrong with being intolerant, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with being tolerant. It is always tolerant or intolerant of certain things.


Note: definitions have been taken without a lot of systematics from Google search. I'm usually more careful about this (using only one dictionary and being consistent) but I felt lazy today. So feel free to correct me based on dictionary use.