I’m starting a semi-regular “feature” type thing (for as long as I like it, subject to change, blah blah blah) about taking back words. I don’t mean by this that I’m going to “take back” something I’ve said as if I didn’t mean it :-) Instead, what this means is that we are going to look at some words that have been hijacked and forced into different meanings from what they originally had. In virtually every instance, it’s to make something that otherwise would be unappealing to the general public more palatable. In short, hijacking the term is useful for the hijacker because he can then paint a picture using false assumptions, thus allowing him to skirt the actual philosophical issues that are in debate.
The first word that I’ve chosen to examine is the word tolerance. Tolerance is a word that used to mean the fair-minded look at another person’s views that disagreed with your own. To use a trivial example: John says, “I like the color blue so I’m going to pain the fence blue.” Bill, his next door neighbor, says, “I despise the color Blue, but I will tolerate your painting the fence blue because I know you like it.”
But this is not how the term is used today. Today, what happens is this: John says, “I like the color blue.” Bill says, “I despise the color Blue and if you paint your fence blue, I’ll sue you.” John says, “But it’s my fence!” Bill responds: “You’re intolerant of my dislike for the color blue!”
As I said, it’s an admittedly trivial example. Where this most often comes into play is when conservatives deal with pomos (that is, Post Moderns). To take a specific instance, homosexuality:
Conservative: I think homosexuality is wrong.
Pomo: You’re an intolerant bigot.
Conservative: I haven’t even said you couldn’t practice your homosexuality!
Pomo: It doesn’t matter. You disagreed with my position, so you’re intolerant.
At this point, the conversation is over. The very fact that one group disagrees with the other is seen as evidence of intolerance, when in fact, tolerance cannot occur without disagreement! Remember, tolerance begins with a reasoned response to something that people disagree on. You cannot tolerate something you agree with! If you agree, it’s hardly tolerating it!
But if we press it further, the Pomo is just as intolerant as he claims the Conservative is. After all, using that same definition, we could re-write this as:
Pomo: I think that homosexuality is right.
Conservative: You’re intolerant of my position that it’s wrong!
Used in this manner, however, we can see the utter absurdity of the misuse of the term! After all, the redefinition of the term only works one way. It only works when the Pomo is leveling the charge against the Conservative.
In short, the word tolerance now means little more than being “lock step with the politicaly correct vision of the world.” The term “intolerance” is now used merely as a conversation-stopper. Stripped of its actual meaning, it can now only function as a bat to beat over the head of any who would disagree with the establishment. Thus demonstrating, once again, the utter intolerance of those who claim the banner of tolerance.
