Toleration is generally viewed as the ability to accept the beliefs and ideas of others. In American society toleration is generally seen as a positive characteristic. It incorporates both having empathy for others and for having the ability to accept the views of others without necessarily agreeing with them or understanding them. Inclusive of the idea of toleration, is the fact that the ideas are not agreed with. If a person is to tolerate an idea, they must first feel negatively about that idea. The idea of tolerance may be good, but its effect in modern society is a negative one. Bradford Smith describes tolerance as something that inhibits people, describing it as a form of self-righteousness where it should instead adopt the ideas of acceptance, concern and understanding. The struggle is in the very nature of tolerance itself. It requires people to accept things they do not understand or agree with, this requirement is a tough ask of human nature. This is where the controversy of tolerance lies. There is a fine distinction between accepting all ideas of others while still being free to have your own ideas. The arguments against tolerance as a positive thing come from its prevention of free speech, its ability to prevent people from accepting their own ideas, as well as the questionable motive for it. The first argument against tolerance is that it prevents people from presenting their opinions. This can be seen as a direct violation of the right of free speech. Tolerance asks not only that a person not voice their opinions against things they do not believe in, but also that they not hold these opinions...

As Bradford Smith says, it inhibits the freedom of people to criticize public figures who have some sort of minority status. In fact, it inhibits people to criticize anyone with a minority status. The extra difficulty present is that often the ideas that one goes against comes as part of the minority status package. There is a difficulty in recognizing differences without discriminating. Equality is often seen as accepting that everyone is the same, when in fact it should be based on recognizing and accepting differences. The idea that one should not voice opinion about minority groups means that opinions cannot be voiced about what makes this minority group different. This prevents discussion and consideration of the differences. This in turn means that understanding can never really be achieved. Understanding requires shared opinions, and shared opinions requires honest discussions of reactions and ideas. One objection to this point can be made in response to the true meaning of tolerance. If tolerance is seen as judging people based on their beliefs, but not on arbitrary characteristics then tolerance can be seen as a positive. But often a person's beliefs and other characteristics are so intertwined that the distinction is difficult to make. A second objection can be made if we see tolerance as being able to accept our own negative reactions while still allowing ourselves to be open to understanding others. The current environment where tolerance is generally viewed as positive, makes it difficult for people to accept their negative reactions.
The second argument for the negative view of…