In contemporary western culture, it’s not uncommon for people to so identify with an idea that disagreeing with them is tantamount to an attack on their personhood. In some academic circles some have even postulated that expressing propositional truth as “true for all people” is tantamount to micro-aggression.

One obviously challenge with such a position is that it fails its own test. “Saying something is true for all people is wrong” is itself a statement for all people. It’s a contradiction and therefore false.

Closer to home, it’s not a livable idea. No one can actually live without accepting that some things are true, and if you ask them something crazy like, “Is torturing babies for fun okay? Isn’t that just wrong for all people, even if they were to assert that it’s their culture, heritage, or religion?”

The classic version of “tolerance” is that all people have equal value, but it denies that all ideas have equal value. In such a context, we are to be gentle and respectful of someone’s right to disagree. And disagreement means you have something to tolerate.

The contemporary version of “tolerance” has come to mean that affirming the value of people means affirming the their ideas or choices as true. It’s the consequence of failing to see people and ideas as separate.

Consequently, one simple conversational skill to develop is to answer a question with a couple questions, beginning with, “Do you value tolerance?” Most likely they will say, “Of course!” And to this you follow up with, “So if I express a perspective that is different than yours, you’ll tolerate me?”

Remember, even though they’ll have trapped themselves into answering the second question affirmatively, our goal is never to “win” or back them into a corner  — it’s to answer the person (not, per se, the question). Gentleness and respect are always the order of the day, because people are not ideas.

♱♱♱