obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one’s own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
Hmm. I wonder why that word gets thrown around so often, mostly in the direction of persons unknown. Unless you actually know someone, how is it possible to judge whether their beliefs are unreasoned? As far as being narrow-minded, I have to wonder if those who use the word aren’t exactly who they are trying to deride.
There are many people in this country who might fit that definition, but I would never presume to think they are simply the folks who disagree with me. After all, perhaps they are correct, and I’m the one who needs to reevaluate my beliefs. Then again, I’ve spent a lot of time doing just that in my life. And I’m not intolerant of those who believe differently. Tolerate means “to allow without prohibiting or opposing.” I tolerate a lot. I may not support it all, but that doesn’t equate to intolerance.
We’ve had a lot of anguish this year, mostly self-induced. Isn’t it about time people quit throwing around words like that?
Wow, Bunker, sometimes I feel like you write the occasional post just for me. Well, in the name of ending self-induced anguish, I’ll just have to resign myself to the scarlet B. I’m completely intolerant of what I still perceive — after repeated reevalution of the issue — to be a very prohibitive and unjust intolerance in our midst.
All in all, that’s some high-quality semantic topspin, though. Wickedly good post.
Comment by Bogey — November 16, 2004 @ 11:32 pm
No, not just for you. I was waxing philosophical after reading that word in so many places during the last few weeks. I think it is overused, and wanted people to consider the word for what it really is.
Comment by Bunker — November 17, 2004 @ 5:28 am