I’ve always believed that one of the core precepts of progressivism is the tolerance of all which is non malicious. It’s the idea that to be progressive is to be tolerant towards other behaviors, cultures, beliefs, so long as they are not malicious in intent. This way, it allows for everyone to live comfortably since everyone is allowed to do what they want to do without being judged or ostracized. But this creates a problem, which is the recognition of humankind’s tendency to create and uphold taboos. The question thus becomes: what taboos are reasonable and which ones are not? And for the ones that are unreasonable, is it then reasonable or practical to abolish them? This is a difficult subject matter because taboos are often emotionally charged rather than based in strict logic and reason. Similar to laws or other social conventions, they are a shortcut to an orderly society rather than a representation of what ought to be right.

For example, let’s analyze chewing with your mouth open. This is pretty commonly frowned upon. But is it harmful or offensive? One could make the case that it is offensive in that it makes people uncomfortable. But being uncomfortable is a mindset that is dictated by social norms. Consider for a moment you were born into a culture where chewing with your mouths open was a common practice. You would not have the same repulsive reaction to eating with your mouth open as you would otherwise. What actual harms are caused by chewing with your mouth open? Well perhaps you can say that it is unsanitary. But realistically, in most cases, hygienic issues are unlikely to arise. You’d also have to contend with the fact that if sanitation was the only issue, you would have no problem with open mouth chewing if it was done at an appropriate distance from you. Or the fact that there are probably loads of other far more unhygienic things you experience on a daily basis that you have no such reaction over. 

But actually, I have intentionally overlooked something. For example, the fact that maybe humans are simply biologically programmed to find open mouth chewing repulsive. Earlier I said being uncomfortable is simply a mindset that is dictated by social norms. This is obviously not true for every case. It is not a “social norm” for me to find being stabbed to death unpleasant. It can be said that it is simply a property of being human. There are certain universal experiences that every human (or nearly every) can agree on. Do we now need to judge each taboo on a case by case basis of whether it encapsulates a fundamental core human experience or not? The tricky part is figuring out what to do with those experiences that split the population, and whether both are equally valid. For example, perhaps I can train and modify my mindset to accept the behavior of open mouth chewing. But should I have to? When is it right for others to ask me to change my stance on a thing I find unacceptable? 

Even setting that aside. There are certain taboos that we know for sure are not a fundamental core human experience. Yet I still hesitate to dismiss as invalid due to social historical context. For example: nudity. Nude human bodies are natural by definition. In a vacuum, there shouldn’t really be a reason why nudity is problematic. An argument can be made that overly puritan societies ultimately lean in the wrong direction when nudity is criminalized to the extent of oppression. But let’s be so for real. It would be ridiculous to walk out into public with hog out. And then accuse other people of being unaccepting simply because they don’t want to see me in my birthday suit. Human history has been filled with oppression and misogyny. Sex has been used for power, manipulation, and control. Genitals serve as sex symbols but also representations of perverse aspects of society. It would be, for example, incredibly unreasonable to approach someone who was a victim of sexual assault and may have trauma and tell them to simply “get over it” and “have an open mind”. Sure, maybe if we had like a societal reset where we forgot all prior historical context, we can build a society where nudity invokes no reaction in people. But that simply is not possible. This is an example of a social taboo that exists purely due to societal and historical context.

But this brings up the question, do people have a right to try and change the public’s perception to become more tolerant? Let’s say I’m a diehard nudist and truly believe that society should be able to live without shame of our bodies, and that our private bits should not be criminalized for existing in the open (to be clear this is a hypothetical, I don’t actually advocate for this for both the reasons above and my personal uncomfortability with nudity). Does a self proclaimed progressive have the right to reject my advocacy for change? Because like I said before, it is possible to change the public’s perception on a subject until it no longer becomes taboo. And eventually, people will hold the perception of “I can’t believe we were ever against this”. One of the best examples I can think of is furries. Furries used to be a much more niche community on parts of the internet. The general social vibe was that being a furry was at best, a weird thing, and at worst, a degenerative label. Even among those who were more progressive back then, being associated with furries was seen as something undesirable because of the implications. A lot of slander was also spread regarding what it is exactly that furries are about. But I would say public perception of furries has a lot more of a positive light in recent years. It’s still stigmatized amongst intolerant communities, sure. But it is no longer like a shock or horrific thing to be outed as a furry. Light hearted stereotypes of people in IT being furries or furries being pillars of modern web infrastructures are made with positive intention rather than negative. Furry conventions not only exist but have gotten more popular. One might say that furries back in the day just had a branding issue but I’m much more inclined to believe that over time, progressive people simply realized there was no harm in individuals who simply had eccentric interests in colorful animals. But we wouldn’t have gotten here if it weren’t for people standing up for their interests and a desire to tear down the taboo. 

So I propose an open question. How do you decide whether you tolerate a taboo or not?