To hate the word tolerance when trotted about for positive messages?

[quencher]

When used as a positive at gay or race issues. Any one who uses the word is basically saying "am ok with your view but I don't agree with it". Tolerance is not acceptance. Tolerance is not embracive.
Tolerance is allowing someone to believe what they want as long as it does not affect you. More like leaving them to their belief even though you don't agree. So, why do people love the word so much?
When people are fighting to be accepted, no one wants to be tolerated like a bug bear you can't get ride off.

I don't want to be TOLERATED, I want to be embraced, loved, warts and all.
You may not want to merely tolerated but from some people that'll be the best you can get. You can't make people love you anymore than you could honestly say that you love everybody. You only have to read some of the MIL threads on here to see that some posters not only don't love their MILs but barely tolerate seeing them for 5 seconds at Christmas!

I should point out that when I agreed earlier with tolerance being like respect I didn't mean that tolerating someone equates to respecting them - more that it means respecting their right to be different / have different views / lifestyles etc.

"I don't want to be TOLERATED, I want to be embraced, loved, warts and all."
That would be fantastic. How do you think we can make that happen?

I don't think everyone has to love me. I quite understand why some don't! But what I don't want is this dreadful condescending notion of tolerance. Either love me, or don't love me, but don't act like you're doing me some kind of favor by tolerating me, like you're somehow better than me but you're magnanimous enough to let my presence slide. That was my point - that's what tolerance feels like to me.

I don't want to be TOLERATED, I want to be embraced, loved, warts and all.

Well that's tough shit isn't it?

"Either love me, or don't love me, but don't act like you're doing me some kind of favor by tolerating me, like you're somehow better than me but you're magnanimous enough to let my presence slide. That was my point - that's what tolerance feels like to me."

I think there's a big difference here between the public and private spheres. I can see why you would want, expect and deserve more than toleration in the private sphere, of course. But in the public sphere, which is what we're talking about, toleration, backed up by the law and by societal pressure is as much as you can expect. You can ans should get more. But toleration is the base line.

The world is full of arseholes. As a society we broadly agree what constitutes arsehole behaviour and have legislation to guard against it in public life. But people have the right to be arseholes and tolerance in public terms means that they have to show you respect when it comes to employment rights and how they behave towards you and you have to respect their private right to be an arsehole. Yes, it would be great if all people were nice but they are not and the best you can get is a society that through its laws prevents arsehole behaviour.

I guess tolerance means that live and let live in enforced via the law.

I actually rather like the concept of tolerance as it embraces difference. There will be so many people living their lives in ways very different to me making choices I would never make. I think our ability as a society to tolerate people very different from ourselves is a great strength. I don't necessarily admire or love every other person, but that isn't necessary for us all to rub along, I just have to tolerate them. Asking for more seems too much like Big Brother style mind control - no one gets to police my thoughts but me.

Yes, it would be great if all people were nice but they are not and the best you can get is a society that through its laws prevents arsehole behaviour. The thing is, we can be accepting of differences without being nice to individuals we don't like who have wronged us. Why have a blanket hatred for people you have probably never met, been in contact with, or had any form of conversation or bad behaviour from them personally? That is what puzzles me.

"enforced via the law". on this topic , the law is there for us to understand that we are the same and deserve the same rights and respect whether you approve or not. The law is for those who do not agree to be brought inline with those they disprove of. In this case their freedom to voice their opinion can be a criminal offence. the law is not asking for tolerance but acceptance and view change from those individuals who hold them. To say that it's freedom of speech, actually, does not apply here because the law concludes that voicing it in anyway, shape or form is wrong and unacceptable (it violate acceptance).

I think tolerance is summed up as 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. I think it is something to be proud of, our willingness as a society to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that we don't necessary like or agree with.

I don't think the law is asking for acceptance. I think it is asking that those whose view diverges from the majority, do not impose their prejudices in the workplace or any pther aspect of public life.