Difference between revisions of "Social intolerance"

Latest revision as of 15:36, 5 April 2012

Overview

Social intolerance is an intolerance towards cultural ideas or ways different from one's own. It is characterized by avoidance of examining such ideas (failure to examine) and an unwillingness to see any value in them (failure to see the good).

Social intolerance is usually just called "intolerance", with the usage being understood in context.

Social intolerance is generally associated with conservatism, and is arguably an essential component of it.

Significance

Social intolerance is seen as a bad thing because:

the failure to examine means that an intolerant person's misperceptions or misunderstandings about an idea or custom can never be corrected, because the person will decline to go into detail about their understanding as it is and will generally fail to learn from any corrections which might be offered
the failure to see the good (a.k.a. "throwing out the baby with the bath water", a form of guilt by association) means that good ideas are often rejected and rendered taboo because of where they were first encountered; the target of the intolerance is not credited for having any good aspects, and can safely be demonized

Although conservatism sees intolerance as necessary for preserving social cohesion, this does not work well in a society such as that of the United States, where interdependencies between different subcultures are necessary for commerce; it also works very poorly in a world where prosperity depends increasingly on interactions between different nations, which may have very different social structures.

Conclusions

Tolerance is the idea which allowed America, the "melting pot" of the world, to achieve much of its early wealth despite the rapid influx of new cultures and customs; it has similarly allowed global commerce to thrive as global transportation and communication have become ever cheaper and easier.

Those who cling to intolerance as a necessary bastion of social cohesion are both ignoring the gains to be had from tolerance and risking global peace (and prosperity). In a time when you could insult your neighbors a few hundred miles away and not worry about what they thought, intolerance was perhaps a more reasonable principle to nurture. In a world where people a thousand miles away from you might decide to cut off your oil supply or hold your journalists hostage, casual dismissal becomes a luxury.

We now risk a great deal even with accurate and necessary criticisms; unnecessary ones benefit nobody except powermongers, and only make us look willfully ignorant.

Misuse

Rational criticism of religion is often described as "intolerance", but this is an erroneous usage; see tolerance of intolerance/religion.

Definitions

Derived from Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary; for the physiological definition (as in "drug intolerance"), see those sources.

(1) inability or unwillingness to endure [something]
(2) unwillingness to grant others...
- (a) ...equal freedom of expression, especially in religious matters
- (b) ...social, political, or professional rights
(3) close-mindedness about new or different ideas; indisposition to tolerate contrary opinions or beliefs; impatient of dissent or opposition; denying or refusing the right of private opinion or choice in others; inclined to persecute or suppress dissent.

Links

Reference

Wiktionary (intolerant)
Merriam-Webster (intolerant)
wikipedia: see religious intolerance, ethnic intolerance
Conservapedia takes a "salvation"-based approach to defending intolerance
~~dKosopedia~~ (as of 2009-03-15); try search
~~SourceWatch~~ (as of 2009-03-15); try search

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 * the ''failure to examine'' means that an intolerant person's misperceptions or misunderstandings about an idea or custom can never be corrected, because the person will decline to go into detail about their understanding as it is and will generally fail to learn from any corrections which might be offered
 * the ''failure to see the good'' (a.k.a. "throwing out the baby with the bath water", a form of [[guilt by association]]) means that good ideas are often rejected and rendered taboo because of where they were first encountered; the target of the intolerance is not credited for having any good aspects, and can safely be [[demonized]]
-[[Social intolerance]] is harmful:
-* when it prevents ideas from being expressed, rather than arguing against them on their own merits
-* when it unfairly discriminates against individuals who agree with those ideas, rather than criticizing those individuals on the merits of their actions
 Although [[conservatism]] sees intolerance as necessary for preserving social cohesion, this does not work well in a society such as that of the [[United States]], where interdependencies between different subcultures are necessary for commerce; it also works very poorly in a world where prosperity depends increasingly on interactions between different nations, which may have very different social structures.
@@ Line 22: / Line 18: @@
 We now risk a great deal even with accurate and necessary criticisms; unnecessary ones benefit nobody except [[powermonger]]s, and only make us look willfully ignorant.
 ===Misuse===
-[[Rational criticism]] of [[religion]] is often described as "intolerance", but this is an erroneous usage.
+[[Rational criticism]] of [[religion]] is often described as "intolerance", but this is an erroneous usage; see [[tolerance of intolerance/religion]].
-An intolerant attitude refuses to even examine the subject, much less recognize any merits it may have. Critics of religion (typically [[active atheist]]s), however, generally (1) only criticize religion ''after'' a careful examination of it, and (2) do recognize that religion does have some benefits, and merely contend that those benefits are outweighed by the problems religion causes (sometimes noting that the benefits may be merely byproducts which could be obtained without involving religion itself).
-Intolerance of particular religious ideas is ''not the same'' as intolerance of the religion itself, or of that religion's adherents. Tolerance may require intolerant ideas to change, and religion may resist that change -- but whose fault is that? If we decide that "intolerance" should prevail, then we ultimately end up with a world where the least tolerant and most aggressive religion takes over. (Note to [[American conservative]]s who are disdainful of "tolerance", and Christians who claim to be victims of "[[atheist intolerance]]"): '''the current front-runner for that prize would be Islam'''.)
-====Example====
-A highly intolerant flavor of [[Islam]] has made great headway in [[Europe]], largely on the argument that any deviation from its rules and requirements is "intolerance".
-This is completely backwards; refusal to tolerate certain intolerant ideas is not "intolerance" in the usual sense of the word; it is rational rejection of a bad idea, otherwise known as "good sense", and ''promotes'' tolerance. Failure to reject these ideas has resulted in a tremendous upswing in intolerant behavior.
 ===Definitions===