Tolerance isn't blind acceptance. Nor is it tacit acceptance.
On today's episode, I'm flying solo, talking about the difference between tolerance and acceptance, plus how to start resetting narratives vs. responding to narratives.
"I think it's pretty obvious that the main thing we can take away is that it's important for us when we're speaking the truth and selling the ideas and solutions that we bring to the table from the liberty perspective, that instead of being squishy and trying not to offend, that It's important to make definitive and declarative positions based on not only what you believe, but also in the face of that which you disagree with…"
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Studio Sponsor ➡ BNC: Proven sales and messaging strategies that WIN - briannicholsconsulting.com
Support the program with a one-time donation or join our Patreon!
Take our audience survey for a chance to win a "Don't Hurt People, Don't Take Their Stuff" bumper sticker!
Brian Nichols 00:04
There seems to be a weird discrepancy in the liberty movement when it comes to understanding the differences between tolerating something and accepting something.
So for example, one no look further than the recent conversation about transgenderism and abortion rights. What's interesting is that a lot of libertarians seem to think that because we are supposed to be tolerant, that also means that we actively don't position things against those ideas which we are tolerating.
And that's just fundamentally not true.
For example, I can tolerate people being morbidly obese. As a matter of fact, I empathize with those people. Because I once used to be morbidly obese myself.
But that doesn't mean I need to accept the behavior. Sure, I “tolerate” them being morbidly obese. And the decision that that has on their lives doesn't mean that I accepted their way of life or their lifestyle or their decisions.
As a matter of fact, I made it a point to actively talk about the opposite. And make it a point to focus on helping people better their lives especially when it comes to discussing people being morbidly obese and unhealthy because I've been there and I get it.
But that doesn't mean that I endorse their lifestyles, though I'm tolerant of them. Why is it a controversial opinion? Why is it controversial - to tolerate someone's belief and then have a contrary personal opinion yourself?
Tolerance isn't blind acceptance. Nor is it tacit acceptance.
I think we've seen this over the past few decades… The left continues to push the envelope. They continue to move the goalposts because they've been taking tolerance - specifically from those in the center or those who simply don't want to offend.
And they've taken that forced tolerance to mean acceptance.
Tolerance is not acceptance. And when things move into the position, where they are now, where tolerance isn't simply enough in the eyes of the left, then it must be not just tacit acceptance, but full-throated endorsements.
Yeah, that doesn't work.
And now the loudest voices on the left are freaking out.
Because instead of them being able to push through their bananas ideas under the guise of others having to be “personally accepting”, now they have to respond to those who they thought would just tacitly accept these ideas - who are now pushing back against those ideas that have tolerated, but never actually accepted.
So what can we learn from this?
I think it's pretty obvious that the main thing we can take away is that it's important for us when we're speaking the truth and selling the ideas and solutions that we bring to the table from the liberty perspective, that instead of being squishy and trying not to offend, that It's important to make definitive and declarative positions based on not only what you believe, but also in the face of that which you disagree with…
Especially when those ideas are way outside of t he mainstream, because there are people who are in our target market who have been staying silent for the fear of being ostracized by those loud voices, those loud voices that we've seen, be inflated.
Social media and their behind-the-scenes tinkering of algorithms not only has inflated those voices, but has silenced dissenting voices. And this is why I think we've seen such a vapid reaction to both Elon Musk buying Twitter and the fact that the corporate media is hemorrhaging viewers and subscribers left and right.
Think about what that means.
People now not only have the opportunity to actively find other ways of thinking, but now they have the opportunity to find ways of thinking that they were told to believe were unpopular. Of cour, now they’re finding out that not only do quite a few people believe what they believe, but actually a lot of people (maybe even a majority of people) are right there with them.
So we have an opportunity here. We truly do. We have an opportunity to reframe the narratives. This is why again, it's so important that we talk about setting narratives versus responding to narratives.
Because now we, can set the narratives. When we see things that are wrong, then we set the narrative, “this is wrong”.
Instead of responding to narratives, get the left to explain why their ideas are right and why their ideas are good. Get the left to explain why.
Because what do we know when you're explaining you're losing.
Make them explain why they find it important to talk about transgenderism to little kids in Florida, kindergarten through third grade. Make them explain why that's a good idea. Make them explain why parents should not have a role in determining where their dollars - their own hard-earned dollars - go towards their child's education.
When you set narratives and you make the other side explain, you win. We do this in sales. When you're talking about not just setting the path towards the end goal for your prospect, but also the steps to get there. And then, you're setting the narratives about your company, about your solution, about your differentiators. All those narratives that you're setting, you're setting them - not responding to them.
Imagine if you would come into a situation where your prospect had heard every objection from your competitors about you. Every concern, every rumor, and they brought that up during a meeting. They started leading the conversation by asking questions like, “Does your company really only offer these 3 different packages? Because I was speaking to one of your competitors, and they said that not only do they have more options than you, but that your solution doesn’t even compare with theirs to begin with. Can you explain?”
See the difference? What if we had started things by setting the narratives first by overcoming common objections that you know your competitor often sells again, and you were able to not only block those objections, but set a new narrative about those objections across the board?
“Mrs. Prospect , one of the things that makes us different is that, unlike our competitors, we can do X, Y, and Z without the headaches of *PAIN POINT HERE*. One question raised by our competitors is *DEFEAT OBJECTION*, but here's the truth; *SET NEW NARRATIVE*.”
Based on what your differentiator/value-add is, now you're ready to start controlling the conversation.
And you're now making a direct appeal to those who are open to your positioning and your solutions.
So, to conclude -tolerance versus acceptance… Yes, you can tolerate. But no, you do not need to accept.
As a matter of fact, you can still tolerate other behavior while actively positioning against that behavior with a different solution.
Check out some of our favorite episodes!