Thanks for the article. Liberal ideologues are aware of the limits of "tolerance" linguistically, and I've seen people suggest changing the verbiage from "tolerance" to "acceptance," which brings a whole new slew of moral debates (if you care to swim in those semantic waters).
I feel like lying in wait in your father's critique is the "tolerant of intolerance" argument. I always refer to Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I'm curious if you have feelings either way on that idea.
Thank you for this comment, Danny. Switching from tolerance to acceptance sounds like movement towards the original intent of both of those words. Perhaps that would help clarify the discussion for some, but then I can see how even acceptance could be looked at from a couple of perspectives. You could accept other positions as legitimate points of view while not accepting them as a moral template you'd want to normalize in your community. I guess it always comes back to defining terms well and being sure that all sides understand them in a discussion. So many issues today seem to stem from people talking in circles because terms are so flexible and poorly defined. I appreciate you reading so thoughtfully.
Another good read. Sheds a light on the confusion we see in society today. Has this leaning toward tolerance allowed what used to be considered the not normal to become normal?
Thanks for the article. Liberal ideologues are aware of the limits of "tolerance" linguistically, and I've seen people suggest changing the verbiage from "tolerance" to "acceptance," which brings a whole new slew of moral debates (if you care to swim in those semantic waters).
I feel like lying in wait in your father's critique is the "tolerant of intolerance" argument. I always refer to Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I'm curious if you have feelings either way on that idea.
Thank you for this comment, Danny. Switching from tolerance to acceptance sounds like movement towards the original intent of both of those words. Perhaps that would help clarify the discussion for some, but then I can see how even acceptance could be looked at from a couple of perspectives. You could accept other positions as legitimate points of view while not accepting them as a moral template you'd want to normalize in your community. I guess it always comes back to defining terms well and being sure that all sides understand them in a discussion. So many issues today seem to stem from people talking in circles because terms are so flexible and poorly defined. I appreciate you reading so thoughtfully.
Another good read. Sheds a light on the confusion we see in society today. Has this leaning toward tolerance allowed what used to be considered the not normal to become normal?