: The Cannibal Society Of Humanity :

Page

Next Last

Arpita

@unitatoxo.

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 9 years ago

Intolerance.

The word is used so often these days for all the wrong reasons that it definitely has lost it's real meaning. The alteration of its definite structure has proved to be disastrous for the humanity many times. But sadly, the truth never had the power to stand up every time this term was questioned. So, here's the truth;

"Intolerance is the unwillingness to accept behaviors, beliefs, or opinions that are different from your own"

One of the major differences between democracy and dictatorship is the fact that the former provides a wide extent of dissent. Thus, it is right to expect from the citizens as well as the government of a well developed democratic country that they accept the difference in views or beliefs of the people and respect their right to voice out opinions. After all, the right to dissent and the tolerance of it are an indispensable part of democracy.

https://40.media.tumblr.com/1f08f0c969a72367689e02bb2310f71e/tumblr_o2sj4eNZRY1sp4y2so7_400.png

We have today reached to a point where the indispensable parts of democracy viz. the right to dissent is viewed as something with extreme hostility and this resentment is usually covered up by using the huge term- 'Intolerance'. This word has become the only go-to through which various freedoms of citizens can be snatched away just because of one's own preference. But that's not what it really is. Intolerance is the nonacceptance towards the existing equality of various groups and societies. It's one's myopia that restricts him from believing that it's fine to have views differing from from your own.

In the present day scenario, the word 'Intolerance' is used to prove the perspective of others wrong because it is different from the majority. This not only questions the freedom of speech but also the basis of democracy.

This word is being tossed around so loosely for the convenience of people these days that the amount of originality left in it has also started to vanish. It's high time to give it back itsdue respect and value before the pedestal on which many major democracies are standing starts to fall into bits.

CREDITS-

:: 18shabbo ::

:: .iridescence. | xbeyondwordsx ::

:: -Trishh- | .nerfherder | .Leprechaun. ::

:: unitatoxo. | DUGGUlicious | debasree04 ::

Edited by unitatoxo. - 9 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

Nishi

@.nerfherder

Sparkler

Posted: 9 years ago

There are always two sides of a coin and when it comes to a widely covered phenomenon like intolerance, one side tends to get overshadowed by the other.

With intolerance it is prone to occur more often as the whole situation of is based on various point of views.In the rush to make the headlines, people unconsciously forget to take in account every point of view revolving around a particular case. There are various cases in which intolerance has been showcased and with valid reasoning for it. But even then we are not supporting it because there is a borderline stupidity involved in those reasons. The need is to make this stupidity end. To let the world understand that it has lost valuable brain cells while it catered to its needs, even when the ways were leading to hell.

One of the cases would be how certain vegetarian landlords refuse to keep non-vegetarian tenants. Reason being how the non-vegetarian lifestyle hurts their values and sentiments. On one hand, the reason is genuine and could be accepted and their wishes respected but on the other, do non-vegetarian people stop eating what they wish to just for the sake of getting a place to live? The reasonable answer would be no, non-vegetarians shouldn't be forced to let go of their culinary habits for a home. But then, the sentiments of the landlords have to be taken in account too. Situations like these shouldn't be filed away under intolerance, but calmly solved through negotiations, or at the least try so.

A report of a Muslim man being lynched outside a village in Delhi is perhaps one of the shocking cases for intolerance. Did the man deserve to lose his life because someone was hurt and uncomfortable by his beef consumption? The Fundamental Rights say no. His views and beliefs allowed him but someone else's didn't. Here was a chance for a calm dialogue. Incidents like these are examples of intolerance which might have some valid reasoning, to a point where both the parties need to understand each others likes and dislikes, but is majorly overshadowed by the opposite occurrence; misguided intolerance with dire consequences.

Recently, the famous comedian Kiku Sharda had been arrested for imitating Ram Rahim Singh on behest of his supporters/devotees. Their reason was that their 'God' was mocked by the comedian and that was a blasphemy. What they said and how they reacted is justified because mocking God is not something of a joke, but the irony in here is that their 'God' himself is guilty of imitating other religious figures and making a mockery of them.

Doesn't this whole situation reek of double standards?

With the increase in intolerant activities, people have begun to misunderstand the whole concept. Some have conveniently forgotten that expressing intolerance isn't according to one's convenience. One cannot condemn an activity while performing it themselves in a different arena. And neither the result of your views should be the death of others.

Intolerance isn't about one's own convenience or preferences. Showcasing it requires a lot of thought put into it and a solid reasoning for doing so which some forget in the rush to achieve their aim.

Edited by .nerfherder - 9 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Trisha

@-Trishh-

Rocker

Posted: 9 years ago

Though it may seem, the term intolerance is not new. It has been used and abused for years. We discussed earlier on how it's much easier to toss the word "intolerance" in conversation and the logic of the conversation would be lost. But recently people have taken up to themselves to make all understand how exactly it should be used. And the history too doesn't disappoints in adding to its tarnished beauty.

Anne Frank left this world way before she should because political intolerance needed blood to survive. The Nazis came, creating an authoritarian menace, scuffing out the voicesthat sounded and for the cause of dictatorship, many lost their lives, Frank being one of them who once, in her days of hiding, wrote-

"When I write I can shake off all my cares. My sorrow disappears, my spirits are revived! But, and that's a big question, will I ever be able to write something great, will I ever become a journalist or a writer?"

She didn't in person achieve what she wanted because someone thought, she didn't belong.

The much talked and criticized statement made by Aamir Khan was one of the first events to bring intolerance into the limelight recently. It's a fact universally known that when someone makes a mistake, we criticize. And when a famous actor makes a mistake, it's almost closer to a sin. The statement about India being unsafe rose to various degrees of reactions, eventually leading to intolerance (which we don't know how it reached to). We may not support Mr.Khan's views, but to let him know that, the need for violence in words was not required. Another actor is bearing the burnt of his statement by the display of physical violence. Yes they live in golden cages and yes they may not know the ground level situation, but if the flames reached up till the cages doesn't that mean the situation is questionable?This, in fact, goes onto to prove the point made by the actors.

https://36.media.tumblr.com/bc88aea182b072291cb5c9bfd745f79d/tumblr_o2sj4eNZRY1sp4y2so5_400.png

Intolerance is defined as the unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or
respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own. They said their opinions and we fueled them with blessings. Rather than asking them the "why", telling them the "fact" and making them believe again, we told them off.

The cycle is never stopping when it comes to intolerance and its horrors. Its so undefined and unethical that its a shock we still have it admist us and we haven't curbed it. Years ago a Rosa Parks was jailed because she kept sitting. This lady was degraded and discriminated on the basis of her colour because the twentieth century USA was particular about keep white, white. She sat in her designated seat on the bus and refused to give it up to let a white have it. She stayed put because she had a belief in her rights as a human being. But her arrest showcased that being human then was just not enough. Years later, Michael Brown was killed because his colour didn't allow the need to question him first and act later.

https://40.media.tumblr.com/8720c958f66068990759690634a66bd7/tumblr_o2sj4eNZRY1sp4y2so2_400.png

The United States is a super power with a say in every possible niche, so why does it feels like its advent towards prosperity lack social justice. It could be a conspiracy theory againstUSA but has the country done enough to fight it?

There is a confusion in the world about where exactly are we heading. The severity of difference in opinions seem more harsh and grim because today, in this hour, we are supposed to be a civilized society of educated, understanding and scrupulous humans, but our actions point in an opposite direction which is cloaked in darkness.

We seem to have become a habitat of sociopaths who have mastered the act of letting everyone feel free, waiting for the moment and then cannibalizing on those people's rights with such precision, that no trace is left.

Edited by -Trishh- - 9 years ago

Quote

Lepzy

@Leprechaun

Moderator

+ 30

Posted: 9 years ago

Is the world becoming ruder? Are we realizing it just now or was it always soaring towards the superlative? Did we ever reach a point of good behaviour, or the moral science classes were a way intofantasy? Ironically, the people who criticize over, having the litany memorized, are the ones who won't entertain the sermons of others. To present a neutral face, they will feign ignorance and innocence for being so, which is a stepping stone for intolerance.

A white mass murderer gets labelled a lone wolf, distressed to his bones while a bearded passer by becomes a suspected terrorist master mind.

An asymmetric turban rules the fashion world, priced as high as a budget of a third world country, though a properly tied one is forbidden in schools.

Acceptance is just a farce. What truly is brewing, is the hatred towards whoever seems to be content. The need to inflict hurt, to gain a reaction so that we can showcase our supremacy is the actual agenda. The peaceful dwelling makes us fearful of losing our identity which thrives on our beliefs and opinions. Intolerance is a form of narcissism, where the need to be the most important is overpowering all our senses.

Presenting an image of a peace lover and wanting freedom for all, holds back its vote to make a country free.

This group have supporters in all forms, colours and race but they withdrew their support from an act because it also protected another community.

Using the term intolerance to get your way in a situation is not only wrong but morally corrupted. Themisguidance of intolerance must end. Don't take the seriousness away from a situation by such misguided concept.

The best way to eliminate the intolerance amidst us is to respect people for who they are and not what they are. Respecting one's personal life is just being human, and it is inhuman to disrespect someone because they have a different point of view. Its advisory to keep oneself in the same situation before lifting your fingers to their face.

In conclusion, all we would say is sharing your views on something is not a sin but to continuously argue that what you state is right is insane. Think well before you act. Just because you think something is right, doesn't mean everyone will agree with you. Fighting an evil, not bending in front of something morally wrong and standing up for the greater good of humanity by exercising intolerance can be understood and should be the new way of defining it. We all have the freedom of speech and expression (to an extent, of course). To abuse that right to prove your point, is intolerance. Don't confuse it with anything else.

Edited by .Leprechaun. - 9 years ago