The crux of the post-modern movement is relativism. This system claims there is no absolute or objective truth, but that truth is subjective. That is to say, something can be true for you, but not true for me.
Truth is what we believe it to be, not anything else. Stemming from this view is a rejection of anyone who claims to have the truth. Our society calls this tolerance.
There is something wrong with the way we view tolerance these days. We think tolerance means having to be completely accepting of all views: no judgments, no sides, just complete neutrality.
Anyone who claims to have the truth or claims others are wrong is labeled an intolerant person. This is a poor way of looking at tolerance, though.
Webster’s defines tolerate as, “to put up with; to endure.” This is a very telling definition. It tells us we put up with or endure something to tolerate it.
So what kinds of things do we put up with? What kinds of things do we endure?
Well, it’s obvious we don’t put up with or endure things with which we agree. That would be silly. The only answer can be things that we think are wrong.
So, actually, tolerance requires disagreement. It requires people thinking they are in the right, and others in the wrong.
Yet in doing this, in exercising true tolerance, that person is open to being ridiculed as intolerant. Isn’t there something wrong with this?
Let me show you an example. Imagine one of my friends and I get into an argument over same-sex marriage. After I express my view on the matter, my friend responds by telling me I am intolerant, ignorant and bigoted.
My question is: why am I intolerant for merely holding to a view that is in disagreement with my friend?
After all, I am not rejecting him, only his view. There is nothing wrong with rejecting a view is there? Sadly, under our current view, of tolerance, there is something wrong with disagreeing with other views. We are charged as intolerant jerks.
Also, when a person deems another intolerant, he or she is oftentimes marvelously unaware of his or her own intolerance.
In the previous example, my friend is guilty of doing the same thing he accuses me of which; he is being intolerant of my view. He can only label someone as intolerant from a position of intolerance. 
This violates the law of non-contradiction and shows the modern view of tolerance is flawed.
What drives this misuse of tolerance in our culture today? I think it’s fear: fear of rejection, fear of intellectual engagement and fear of being wrong.
It is much easier to dismiss someone as a bigot than it is to participate in dialogue with them. In my opinion, this is just sad. People should embrace a competitive marketplace of ideas, not cower in rhetoric.
Please do not be mistaken. I am not defending those who are truly obnoxious in the way they hold to their beliefs or those who belittle others who hold different views. I believe all views should be treated with respect.
I am merely trying to say our modern notion of tolerance unfairly labels some people as intolerant, when in reality, these people might be the only ones practicing true tolerance.
The next time someone disagrees with you, don’t throw up the flag. Respectfully engage that person in dialogue, and learn.
You think I’m wrong about all of this? Why … that’s so intolerant of you.
Ben Hester is a freshman majoring in political science. He can be contacted at [email protected].