Uncovering Tolerance and Compassion--An Answer to “Hiding Out with Tolerance and Compassion”, in the Huffington Post

Many people think that tolerance and compassion are ideals that should be embodied.  I would agree, but only after we define the terms.  Tolerance has come to mean “embrace”, “affirm”, “agree”, “support”, and “defend”.  However, when we tolerate something, are we really embracing, affirming, agreeing, supporting, and defending something?  Synonyms for the word ‘tolerance’ include patience, sufferance, and forbearance. 

One definition for the word “tolerance” is “the allowable deviation from a standard”.  When the word tolerance is used today, which definition are people using?  I find it interesting that many, who use the word in the first sense, will not allow it to be applied to certain things.  In other words, they simply will not tolerate some things.  

In a recent article in the Huffington Post entitled, “Hiding Out with Tolerance and Compassion”, the author, Viashali, says as much.  “Tolerance and compassion are not merely intellectual states of mind. They are meant to be embodied, shared, dare I say it, lived! Tolerance and compassion are divine forms of intelligence that invite us to require more of ourselves.”  “Aren't right and wrong subjective forms of wisdom -- different degrees of the same thing? When I say that, I'm not talking about right and wrong in serial killing, wife beating or child molesting. I'm talking about right and wrong in how one subjectively experiences reality.”

It would seem that the author looks at tolerance and compassion as synonymous with right and wrong as subjective forms of wisdom.  Yet, she is not willing to embrace tolerance when it comes to serial killers, spousal abusers, and pedophiles.  What about their subjective view of reality?  Where is the tolerance, the embracing, the agreement, and the affirmation of murder, brutality, and sexual abuse?  

What she leaves unsaid (but implied) is this…‘Right and wrong are subjective as long as they agree with my view of right and wrong.  As soon as something comes up that I find reprehensible, then it is objectively wrong!’

Right and wrong are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be different degrees of the same thing.  I find it interesting that she had to make an exception to things like serial killing, wife beating, and child molesting when she spoke of right and wrong as “subjective forms of wisdom…different degrees of the same thing”.  If that definition cannot be applied across the board, then it cannot be applied to any part of the spectrum of right and wrong. 

She goes on to say, “When Albert Einstein was alive, hardly anyone agreed with where he was going in his understanding of time, matter and energy. Imagine Einstein being stifled because Clara Bow or Errol Flynn did not endorse his view of reality!”  

Did you notice that she defines reality as a subjective experience, yet idolizes Einstein for championing objective reality?  Reality is not subjective…it simply is what it is…we can either line up with it as Galileo did, or we can reject it, like those who opposed Galileo did.

She is a person filled with contradictory ideals.  She looks at reality as something to be subjectively experienced and defined, at right and wrong as different degrees of the same thing, and yet, tolerance as right and intolerance as wrong.

I wonder if she would agree that tolerance and intolerance are different degrees of the same thing.

I wonder if she is willing to live in a world that is actually tolerant by her definition. 

I wonder if she tolerates the intolerant. 

I wonder if she realizes that she has been duped by the subtleties of dialectical thought. 

She asks the following question, “Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?” 

The whole idea of “agree to disagree” is actually ignorance.  What is the point to doing such a thing?  If you and I are in obvious disagreement, we really don’t need to come to an agreement about the fact that we disagree.  It is a given.  When someone is saying, “We just need to agree to disagree”, it is a way of saying “Shut Up!  You can’t tell me I’m wrong, but I don’t have the intellectual argument to defend my position!”

After reading her entire article in the Huffington Post, I did not see her mention “compassion” at all.  Yes, she alluded to it, but she equated tolerance, affirmation, and sympathy (as opposed to empathy).  I wonder if she realizes that she is touting ‘tolerance and compassion’ as “right”, and ‘intolerance and disregard’ as “wrong”.

She is entirely correct in stating, “Free will is a great gift”.  She is correct in her analogy of the need for adolescents to “fit in”.  She is correct in stating, “We live in a free country. There is no caveat that it has to be free to think only what Madonna, Lady Gaga, President Obama or Dick Cheney want you to think.”

Lastly, she is correct in stating, “There used to be a saying you rarely hear these days, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I would defend your right to say it with my life." Wouldn't it be interesting if that idea were as popular as being politically correct.”[sic]

I may not agree with much of what she had to say in this article.  I actually disagree with most of it.  The majority of what she writes is dialectical subjective nonsense that has no practical application in society or in reality.  However, I will defend with my life her right to say it!