the point of tolerance

[Her]

a common theme i've seen in threads in d&d lately is the point of tolerance of another person's actions
where we should draw the line, where the nuremberg defense of 'we were only doing our jobs' comes into play/when it should be denied, when it is better to tolerate rather than judge, etc

how far we should tolerate a person's actions seems to be a rather heavy point of contention in most threads in here, and so i want to know:
when is it better to tolerate rather than judge? should empathy be paramount above all modes of understanding? at what point should we no longer tolerate a person's actions? can a person be excused despite the gravity of their crimes?

 

[Kanzler]

It depends.

I'm not clear on whether you mean for toleration and judging to be mutually exclusive. You seem to say that you have to choose one, but that's not the case (for example in tolerating annoying in-laws or friends).

"Should empathy be paramount..." I'm not sure if this is an issue. It's not like you can empathize and then not understand the issue in any other way. Nor is it the case that you have to prioritize one mode of understanding over another. I mean, empathy is always important, because if you don't empathize you can't really understand an issue from another person's perspective, and only by understanding others can you mediate between others. In any case, I think it would be foolish to say that empathy is not important or not necessary, because, well, that's a rather selfish point of view.

"Can a person be excused..." from what? I think that is the big question here. Are we talking about other people's judgement? Or legal consequences? And in either case (which by no means accounts for everything people could be excused from) it really depends on the circumstances. I don't think we should be so hasty as to draw a priori conclusions to the myriad ways a person could act.

What do we mean by tolerance anyways? There's many ways we can tolerate people's actions, so in what sense do we mean? Something can be tolerated legally but not socially (minor cases of lying), socially but not legally (use of marijuana in some ways), and socially but not personally depending on one's tastes or personally but not socially (basically any issue). It's a really open question.

 

[Elite Four Grimsley]

It is hard to draw a line, and it (for me) depends on a lot of variables. Who I'm tolerating. Where I am at the time. What I am tolerating etc.

 

[Her]

It depends.

I'm not clear on whether you mean for toleration and judging to be mutually exclusive. You seem to say that you have to choose one, but that's not the case (for example in tolerating annoying in-laws or friends).

"Should empathy be paramount..." I'm not sure if this is an issue. It's not like you can empathize and then not understand the issue in any other way. Nor is it the case that you have to prioritize one mode of understanding over another. I mean, empathy is always important, because if you don't empathize you can't really understand an issue from another person's perspective, and only by understanding others can you mediate between others. In any case, I think it would be foolish to say that empathy is not important or not necessary, because, well, that's a rather selfish point of view.

"Can a person be excused..." from what? I think that is the big question here. Are we talking about other people's judgement? Or legal consequences? And in either case (which by no means accounts for everything people could be excused from) it really depends on the circumstances. I don't think we should be so hasty as to draw a priori conclusions to the myriad ways a person could act.

What do we mean by tolerance anyways? There's many ways we can tolerate people's actions, so in what sense do we mean? Something can be tolerated legally but not socially (minor cases of lying), socially but not legally (use of marijuana in some ways), and socially but not personally depending on one's tastes or personally but not socially (basically any issue). It's a really open question.

i intentionally left the questions vague so you can come up with your own examples and build an argument off those, hopefully sparking a discussion from other people

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

My only words are that people who claim to be tolerant seem to show the unfortunate face of hypocrisy when met with things that they cannot tolerate. Intolerance exists in everyone; there is an advantage of reducing intolerance, but I don't think it will ever be completely removed.

 

[Pendraflare]

To me, it's better to tolerate than judge when people are clearly not knowing better in doing what they're doing. But when it comes to people that just repeat the same grating, infuriating actions over and over, that's when i'm just finished. Empathy can't kick in for me when people just keep doing the same thing over and over, especially when they tell me not to do that to them and they proceed to do it to me and couldn't feel less guilt about it. If they knew when to stop, it'd be easier for me to excuse one despite what they do.

 

[lloebet]

I believe it is necessary for us too judge people. Why else does it come so naturally to us. We need too judge, we need that medium or set standard in society that tells us "this is how an ideal person would live" because without that, without that idea of social regulation we would have no idea what to accept, as well as we would lose grip on which personalities are which.
For example. A baseball game, or most sports really, there are umpires. They're the ones who decide which plays pass, which ones are acceptable, and which ones arent, just like that social standard does. But if you take away the umpire from the game and leave each individual person up in their own right to decide how the plays end up, there would be mass confusion. Arguments on which plays are which, plays would get mixed together and deranged, and simply put, each individual player would be arguing their own person opinion on how the plays should go and if they passed or not.

So yes. I think society would go insane without the ability to judge people, and without social standards.