Tolerance is not a virtue or a vice per se. Tolerance is a reaction. If you are being tolerant of a good child or a good person who has made an error, then that is probably virtuous. If you are being tolerant of a movement that advocates wiping out 5.5 billion people then that is a big vice.

Hello jbrenner,
I am intolerant of those that refuse to recognize, or wish to undermine my right to exist for my own sake. I am intolerant of those that preach tolerance, but display the most intolerance towards the rights of others. Recently there has been a great deal of wrongful intolerance at colleges by students and faculty when speakers of differing opinions have been slandered and threatened with violent rhetoric. I believe I am a very patient person though and will demonstrate great tolerance for those that are merely ignorant, so long as they are willing to use logic to check their premises and learn. I fully expect to be held to the same standard. Make your case and argue it with civility. I may be swayed. Tolerance is a virtue so long as it does not require sacrifice of principle or self. Intolerance for those that wish to force their will upon me, or use government for same, when their will means sacrifice on my part is a virtue!

Respectfully,
O.A.

Edited for clarity.

Tolerance, as practiced by our Ruling Class and their Useful Idiots, is a purposeful Orwellian euphemism.
Tolerance, as a supposed virtue, was never defined by them as to what it is, only what it is *not*.
And what it is not is every smear that the Ruling Class can successfully fling at their political and philosophical opponents.
Tolerance is the outward identification and profession of faith that you are not in any kind of agreement with the non-persons who the Ruling Class have labeled as scum.
It is a self-reinforcing plank with a nail hammered through it.
It is the easy way out for the non-confrontational.
It is a justification for the malevolent.

Politeness, on the other hand, is often what I call tact.
If I've got to do or say something that will piss you off, let me frame it in a way that you can at least understand the point of view.

Ayn Rand was a very benevolent person, but is also known for her anger at the irrational -- a response arising from the fact that she saw too clearly the consequences of evil ideas. The principle of moral judgment and its crucial reliance on objectivity was explained in her 1962 essay "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?", reissued in her anthology The Virtue of Selfishness. She emphasized, "Judge, and be prepared to be judged."

How one responds to a particular person depends on his actions, not thought alone, but advocacy of evil ideas and their implementation _is_ an action. Most of our interactions with other people are in the form of expression of thoughts -- ranging from musing to threats. Objectivity requires maintaining context.

From the article:

"The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind, arbitrary, self-righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one's mood, one's memorized slogans or one's snap-judgment of the moment. Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion. To declare that 'everybody is white' or 'everybody is black' or 'everybody is neither white nor black, but gray,' is not a moral judgment, but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment."

"To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one's feelings, 'instincts' or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer 'Why?' and to prove one's case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer."

"The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of 'saving everyone's soul'—nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one's moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so."

"This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere 'I don't agree with you' is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent."

"...It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors of knowledge or with human evil."

Fundamental to this topic is Leonard Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value", written in response to David Kelley's attempt to turn "toleration" into a fundmamental virtue, and which you can find at http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articl... and at https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-a...

Good post. +1

Tolerance and politeness are not the same thing.

I am tolerant of someone learning new skills for example. People need to make mistakes to learn to get it right, and it can take time and practice
As many have mentioned, I too am intolerant of those trying to steal my life, my liberty and the products of my labor. I am really intolerant of the willfully ignorant.

Politeness is a social skill. Tolerance is not.

I agree with Pirate that tolerance and politeness are not the same thing.

Furthermore, I think that it is crucial to remember that politeness is not something that is earned by its recipient; it is something that reflects YOU and your interaction with the world around you. You are not polite because someone deserves politeness, you are polite because that is how _you_ wish to be. I am usually, but not invariably, polite.

If tolerance is defined as "acceptance of behavior and opinion that do not fail the 'fist hits my nose' test", then I am all for it. However, silence in the face of the presentation of an unacceptable philosophy does in fact 'hit my nose'. To whit: the socialist intrusion into education is hitting us all in the nose right now, because we tolerated it when it occurred. So within stated narrow parameters, I am Yes on Tolerance...but I am aware that this is not how the term is generally used.

I like different beliefs and modes of behavior. I like the new perspectives that a well-stated and different thought process can provide. One of the reasons I came back to Calif was because 'out here' people were openly 'weird'. Now a new normative standard has been established and while 'weird' is OK, it must be liberal-socialist weird in order to be socially acceptable. (At this point I begin echoing the statements already made by several eloquent posters.) This is now why I am considering leaving CA.

Jan, slightly xenophilic

dbhalling: well put! Ayn said, paraphrased: Everyone has a right to make their own decisions but they have no right to force that on others. That's the problem with government. It uses the power of the gun to force people to do what it deems necessary, usually for its own purpose and not the individual.

"Tolerance" is a word used to indoctrinate and make people think that they have to value those who hold no values and do not value them, that every relationship and being is virtuous. Of course that is not true in the real world, it never has been true and it never will be true. Anyone who has been burned badly in life tends to stop being so tolerant in the interest of self-preservation. This is one of those great words to use to indoctrinate because it sounds nice and it is pretty ambiguous.

Tolerance can be a virtue, especially when teaching. For example, while I was teaching things to my children as they grew, I was of course tolerant with their mistakes. They were, of course, toddlers/young children, so didn't have years of previous learning behind them.

On the flip side, I find my intolerance threshold is quite low, in regard to the utter stupidity and abject ignorance that is daily displayed by those in positions of governance. Why they have a say over my life causes me extreme displeasure, and I've become most intolerant of those who support the scheme to take from me what hasn't been earned by anyone else. I also place in this same category those who refuse to ever learn to think for themselves, and remain stubbornly steadfast in their conflicting premises.

So for me, there are logical degrees of tolerance. Age and experience have a significant role in it.

Allow me to share some thoughts that go beyond the irritant of one intolerable individual.

Tolerance or toleration is a measure of how individuals relate to each other. The scale goes from total acceptance to total rejection. The Greeks had a word for points along the scale:
Sympathy -- Apathy -- Antipathy.

Those who see only the terminal points ("If you're not with us, you are against us") leave no room for a neutral zone of indifference and disengagement. If it were a Venn diagram, unless there is a complete overlap, partial agreement counts for nothing and justifies even genocide. Yet it is in those partial regions of shared values and overlapping commonalities that humans can find ways of coexisting and eventually phasing out conflicts. Without a starting point of recognition of individual sovereignty, civilization becomes impossible.

How does all this happen? I have a theory which will most likely be highly controversial, but I'll put it out here anyway. It maps well onto Objectivist epistemology. It all comes down to "memes" (the human software, per Richard Dawkins), which constitute the building blocks of all thoughts, premises and values, with emotions as the diagnostics of how memes judge their own survival status.

Memes are, in effect, the energy counterparts of the physical microorganisms that make up a human being, and they (the memes) fight for their own survival even more so than for the survival of the physical machine they occupy.

So when a person senses that someone else disagrees or differs in the values held, the result is anger, hate, contempt, disapproval, or any of the thousand nuances of negative reaction we are capable of. At the extreme it leads to physical violence--destroying the host to destroy the idea.

Tolerance is the volitional attitude of "live and let live", of "agree to disagree", or even of exploring where the differences lie and how to resolve them, since "there is no conflict of interest between rational men".

Tolerance is the first step to finding the resolution of those conflicts, of reasoning from rational premises without immediately resorting to mutual destruction. And in those cases where neither can find the mutual "fit", to go their separate ways. With individuals who make a sport of being obtuse or contrarian, isolation or quarantine (the classic "shunning") is the last and best resort. Don't waste another drop of your precious energy in pursuing a fool's errand.

Teaching children, who don't as yet know how to think and reason on an adult level, is a separate topic.

On the larger scale, man cannot live on paranoia and psychopathy nor build successful societies on those motivators. Make no mistake: killing the body always has the goal of turning off the machine that hosts the unwanted ideas. Every conflict can be seen as a collision of memes, a war on the electromagnetic level of reality. That is the level where "values" and all information are encoded. All else is infrastructure.

For the preservation of life, liberty and happiness, and the advancement of human intelligence and innovation, I plead for maintaining the neutral zone of non-aggression and eventual conciliation on rational premises, lest we remain unwitting slaves of our programming, with the resulting tragedy of a world run amok with the destruction of life and life support. To preserve a sane and productive consciousness as the vehicle of preserving life is the highest value.

See also David Kelley's "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism": http://www.amazon.com/Contested-Legacy-A...

Tolerance is one of those things where it is a contextual virtue (well, more contextual than others), and it has caused a lot of angst in Objectivist circles. I think most agree that we should be tolerant of innocent error but not tolerate deliberate evasion - the problem is, too many "strict Objectivists" define "deliberate evasion" as "not agreeing with me after I've explained the truth so clearly." Objectivism would be better served if people took the truism "even Ayn Rand was not infallible" and apply it to themselves: no matter how confident you feel, you can still be wrong. I know this is true, for I have seen so many intelligent Objectivists completely confident in a particular contentious opinion, but they're still wrong. Perhaps they should take a similarly generous view and realise that just because I disagree with them, that doesn't mean I'm wrong, let alone that I'm a wicked evader.

Dr. Jim, tolerance is inaccuracy, like a resistor
quoted as 102k ohms plus-or-minus 10 percent.
and in other zones, it is latitude and acceptance
expected of conservatives for liberal causes.

Rand embraced tolerance as a waste of energy,
in my view -- since she only had so much energy,
she did not want to aim off-center when the bull's-eye
was within easy reach. . she wanted the greatest
influence, and accuracy provided that -- for the
people who were possible to reach. . imho.

politeness is altogether different. . as a member
of the south, I understand it as interpersonal
lubricant or respect -- respect that you are facing
another person. . you treat them gently because
they *are* another person. . you do not change *your*
character or opinions; you just show respect.
respect can take the form of grace in conversation
or generousness -- on the surface -- in hospitality.
it's like the embodiment of the first amendment
where you act like the government should -- you
hold back from others' choices of self-expression
or association or creed or religion. . you don't
give up your own.

does this help? -- j

I remember something that Nathaniel Branden told me- its always OK to tell people how YOU feel and think. As I have grown older, I am more outspoken and perhaps one could call that intolerant. For example- lately when I see a person obviously begging for money over and over again, I simply tell them that I am tired of having them expect that I should go out and work, so they can NOT work. I then ask them point blank why would they expect me to make money and then give it to them? I feel they should be able to answer that, and I stand there until they answer it OR they walk away (which is usually the case). If more people did that, perhaps there would be less begging.

Something I learned as a child in a place and time when living was not easy, was a disdain for fools and their attempts to take up your time. Fools to me were those that didn't or wouldn't learn, had nothing to teach, promised things not in their control or which they couldn't do, tried to figure out what was expected to be said rather than what was thought or believed in, cared more for the appearance than the substance, etc. Those people don't deserve tolerance, my time, nor my politeness. They deserve to be ignored and even humiliated enough to get the message to don't waste my time.

Tolerance and politeness are things that cost you. They take time, energy, and distractions from logicical, rational thought. In order to obtain tolerance from me, one has to earn it.

Maybe not virtuous, but a practicality. I generally have a air of tolerance about me because it creates less friction in the world outside of the Gulch. Most of the time I choose to be tolerant. I have noticed like you that a lot of people like to use tolerance as a means of psyco-manuplitation to gain what they want. This has definitely been increasing over the years. If possible I like to withdraw from these people, but when someone tries to use me like a doormat I crush them like the nasty bug that they are.
I have started reading Ayn Rand's other books and works, and I think what I like about her the most is that she would "suffer no fools".

As someone pointed out, tolerance is a measure of the range of "acceptability" on either side of the desired value. The range is not at all necessarily symmetrical. Each one of us has, or should have, their own range of tolerance on any value.

I think that in our current decaying culture, the term is used most frequently to incite acceptance of ignorance, dishonesty, incompetence and worse. Look how many murderers have a long list of previous criminal convictions.

Personally, I am politely and intensely intolerant of people who violate individual rights and property rights, or promote ideas and policies that do that.

Because I agree with others here that politeness is a different concept from tolerance, I strive to be polite with everybody: my closest friends and family, as well as totally unknown strangers. My politeness is an expression of my own self-respect (and self-control),

I do not tolerate willful ignorance or willful carelessness. For me, the subject of judgment is not whether one made an error or a mistake. We all make them. It is what one does after realizing the mistake that is subject to keen scrutiny and judgment.

Just my opinions.

Politeness is the grease that smooths the wheels of society.

Tolerance is a virtue when the other party’s actions/beliefs offer no injury to you or your property and you let them be. That sort of tolerance is also known as “live and let live.”

But a lot of people use the term “tolerance” as code for catering to idiots, and consider
politeness to mean suffering the fool and not calling a spade a spade. In that case, tolerance and politeness are an evil.

Tolerance has become a buzzword, more accurately defined as the misguided acceptance of anything. If you refuse to become that sheep, you will be branded a "loner" or "evil" or any other intolerant names the politically correct tolerant ones choose. .Promoting tolerance is a way to keep people in line with a narrow set of liberal ideas. True tolerance of old, would be accepting people for who they were, still being able to disagree with their actions, but permitting them to make their own mistakes. There was no iron fist of conformity to it. In the "Fountainhead" as example, Roark and Wynand were tolerant of each other. Roark allowed Wynand to progress at the pace he and he alone could choose. There was no attempt to control involved. In the end Wynand was less tolerant of his own failure to be what he desired to be than anyone else could be. Roark wanted to see him reach his goal, but was tolerant of his attempts and ultimate failure.

Tolerance of what exactly? Murder? Stupidity? Hubris? Opposing Viewpoints?

I have no tolerance for stupidity. By stupidity I do not mean making mistakes, but the stupidity of repeating the same mistakes over and over.

I have no tolerance for people trying to SHOVE their preference down my throat by use of the Government or other means of coercive force.

I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for lack of reason when presented with overwhelming FACTS.

I have ZERO tolerance for any propagation of Global Warming caused by man, when I can, as well as others prove that this is a total hoax perpetrated by people trying to get rich, i.e. Al Gore. ALL global warming models and "science" uses Bayesian analysis which is a seriously flawed mechanism to prove anything other than a philosophical argument.

In my opinion just like using the word "Poor" or "Rich", you must have a very specific and clear definition you are using. What is tolerance, and tolerance of what under what context? Hitler was not tolerant of Jews. Gays in general are not tolerant of straight people and their rights when it conflicts with their view.

Define "Poor" or "Rich." Define "Tolerant."

Tolerance is the ability to not choke the crap out of a blithering idiot who is trying to ram their misguided belief system down your throat at the same time they have their hand in your pocket. On their side, tolerance is giving up all of your own personal rights so that you will submit to the will of whatever special interest group is paying today, wants. I have no tolerance for tolerance, in that it has lost it's original meaning of "ability to withstand offensive behavior or statements" and has mutated to mean "allow others to do violence to yourself, and sing hallelujah chorus's during the event". Another word that has been mangled for the sake of manipulation and false justification of motive and intent.

Here is a thought on this matter. It is plausible that tolerance is a close cousin to compromise. And wasn't it Ayn Rand that asked how much cyanide in your sandwich do you wish to compromise with? A minute amount of cyanide is tolerable, but quickly becomes suicidal in increasing amounts.

Tolerance is what the ruling class expects of us, but not of themselves.

Would tolerance be something like letting Obama finish his term in office? Is it just tolerance or is it something more, like perhaps racial tolerance? Are his follows tolerant or could it be construed as something more like stupidity? Is tolerance letting those that think Guam might turn over, or those that question generals about wind power on the battlefield during the battle, or those that promote and or perform illegal acts for personal gain, rule us by making our laws?

Are those here in the Gulch just tolerant of our leadership, or is there another word that describes it better? Will it ever evolve into something else, or perhaps build on those that have had enough, to promote the vote to get them out?

With all the issues we disagree with, are we doing enough to change them, or are we just being tolerant until the next cycle of politics kicks in? How did we solve our disagreements about slavery? Will it come down to something similar if we continue on a similar path for another term or two or three of office? Which side would the military be on? I think this is a dangerous time in our lives. When we're so split in every category and on every subject. and when one side plays `unfair' about getting their point across because they refuse to express the real point, we need to decide which way we want to go. Unfortunately there is no tolerance to splitting the country down the Mississippi and letting everyone make their own choice. The majority of those on our coasts could or might cause us to crack open and break at the Mississippi and perhaps tip us all over.

I often wonder if they simply misspelled it.

Based on their actions and results, intolerance would be a better fit.

I am getting very intolerant of this feud between CG and a number of others in this forum. I thought that had been put aside. Please make it clear in any future posts that your pupose is to carry on the feud, so that I can bypass reading it!