not nessicarily. if everyone were to keep thir mouths etc. shut about all the things that they were intolerant of eventually everyone would be tolerent for fear of sounding like a jackass in a world of people who kept thier mouths shut.
It's not quite that simple. Suppose you put an introvert in a room of extroverts. Now suppose you put an extrovert in a room of introverts.
In the first case, the introvert will feel excluded because the extroverts will keep on interrupting and talking over him - which works if everybody else is doing it. In the second case, the extrovert will feel excluded, because the introverts will be more interested in having quiet conversation than in telling loud jokes.
Now that's an extreme example for the sake of illustrating a point. But I don't think it's an unrealistic one. I think in both cases, you could have lone individuals who felt like the other group was being 'intolerant', when in reality, it's just how they are. There's no way for that to change without one side or the other changing the way that they act for the sake of the other group - giving up a part of their identity, which is neither good or bad, just different.
Keeping people's mouths shut is not tolerance. Understanding that what you do may piss the hell out of someone else and vice versa is more along the lines of tolerance. Getting angry is also human, and what makes people angry is not universal. Hell, in some sense, I would argue that racist comments are a part of culture and have claim to be tolerated. It's not PC nor accepted but I think there is a point where saying even the most hateful, derogatory thing is no different than calling a lawyer some slang term. All because of the context, situation, or tone.
So, to go back to the original post. I object to the idea that using unconscious social conventions to force other people to moderate their behavior in a way that you think is better. I don't think that's tolerance. In fact I think that's pretty
intolerant. At some point, people are going to realize that they don't see eye-to-eye on what tolerance is and isn't, and that the supposed ban on tolerance is really causing more harm than good. Every time somebody makes a comment that, to their mind, is within the acceptable limits of tolerance, everybody else freaks out and starts trying to censure them because they're not holding to the established rule to maintain social order.
I think that's kind of where we are today. Although I think that also sounds like some kind of bizarre, Giver-like utopia. (Not that I really liked that book when I read it...I thought the kid was something of a jackass for unilaterally making the decision to give everybody else back all the memories.
)
