Watching the Words Go By

Tolerance once denoted the ability of people to disagree

without killing each other. Thus the 17th century Dutch Republic
was known as a place of religious tolerance, where Catholics,
Jews, and Protestants could live in peace despite fierce doctrinal
disagreements and various forms of discrimination.
By the late 20th century tolerance had come to acquire a far
more positive meaning. It no longer referred to the mere
allowance of conflicting perspectives, but reflected a genial spirit
of civility and respect. Accordingly, one could not both tolerate
a viewpoint and attack the person who held it. Popular phrases
from this era, like agree to disagree and different strokes for
different folks, expressed the general desire for community and
cordiality in the midst of disagreement.
Today, however, there are certain topics about which it is no
longer possible to agree to disagree. For instance, if anyone
asserts that the integer number of genders is greater than one,
but less than three, civil discourse must not be
considered. Neither should we pity such persons their
ignorance, as in times past, and let them pass in peace. Rather
we should brand them (as transphobic or bigoted) and expose
them to public shame and ridicule. This, indeed, is the very
height of tolerance.
Again, formerly it was possible to advance arguments like this:
On account of its outdated gender norms and discriminatory
sexual ethics, Christianity is incompatible with the modern
West. It was also permissible to utter statements like,
Scientology is a dangerous cult. But under the current
definition of tolerance, identical statements regarding Islam
should emphatically not be tolerated.
Tolerance, of course, is not the only word undergoing
redefinition. Safety, too, seems to be taking on new
meaning. Under the old definition, which described freedom

from the prospect of bodily harm, personal comfort and safety

were unrelated and could even be opposed. Thus Ralph Nader
argued in 1965s Unsafe at Any Speed that automobile
manufacturers wrongly prioritized passenger comfort over
features like seat belts.
This contrasts with todays meaning, by which it is possible for
psychological discomforts (like feeling depressed or rejected) to
constitute a lack of safety. Moreover, since feeling unsafe is
emotionally unpleasant, it follows that this too constitutes a state
of danger. Finally, given that one cannot easily verify whether
others are telling the truth about their feelings, it is best to err on
the side of caution and take such statements at face value.
Consequently one need merely say the magic words I feel
unsafe to summon imminent peril into existence; and those
who fail to heed the call of distress make themselves guilty, not
only of insensitivity, but of aggression or criminal neglect.
In all diligence and compassion, then, let us seek out and
extinguish every source of danger. These include, but are not
limited to, the following: wearing a Halloween costume, teaching
a course on rape law, speaking in a public forum, and saying,
God bless you.
Better yet, since prevention is safer than any cure, the least
harmful action may be to say or do nothing at all. In any case
extreme circumspection is highly advisable especially for
college professors and administrators, whose livelihoods may
depend upon it.