Should we tolerate intolerance?

[Blalron]

I addressed this argument in another thread, but I thought it was worthy of starting a thread of my own over it because I’ve seen this line of argument many times before. It seems superficially convincing at first, but ultimately I must reject the argument advanced by Starving Artist.

@Starving Artist

…So the tolerant should only tolerate the tolerant?

A person can’t very well insist on tolerance from a certain group and then display hatred and intolerance toward that group. For decades I’ve watched as the left has pleaded for tolerance from the right for everything from hair styles and clothing to drug use to gangsta rap to entitlement programs to…well, you get the idea. Yet at the same time they’re yelling at every opportunity about how evil, selfish, racist, sexist, backward, homophobic, provincial, red-necked, stupid and ignorant the members of that group are…

Apparently, those who want to advance the cause of tolerance are not allowed to say negative things against those who are intolerant. I couldn’t disagree more. It may seem hypocritical or paradoxical that those advocating tolerance are intolerant towards those who oppose them, but that’s the only way that social progress can be made and social regress averted.

The philosopher Karl Popper put it best:

@Karl Popper

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. [Emphasis mine] We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Who gets to decide when intolerance is acceptable?

[NetTrekker]

Fundamentalist religion is based on intolerance. “We have the absolute truth, we are chosen by God…everyone else are heathens/infidels.” Until the masses can grow out of it, intolerance is here to stay. Science and education are the answer.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

@NetTrekker

Fundamentalist religion is based on intolerance. “We have the absolute truth, we are chosen by God…everyone else are heathens/infidels.” Until the masses can grow out of it, intolerance is here to stay. Science and education are the answer.

OK, but not really the answer I was looking for. Who gets to decide that their intolerance is acceptable and what basis do they use to defend that they are the correct judge?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

What is meant by “tolerate?” Should we take their rights away? No. Do we have to like them? Of course not. Respecting the right to an opinion does not mean you have to respect the opinion itself. I think the accusations of intolerance by the those are preach tolerance are rooted in a false definition of the word “tolerance.” Wanting to take somebody’s rights away is intolerant. Thinking somebody is an asshole for wanting to take somebody’s rights away is not.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What is meant by “tolerate?” Should we take their rights away? No. Do we have to like them? Of course not. Respecting the right to an opinion does not mean you have to respect the opinion itself. I think the accusations of intolerance by the those are preach tolerance are rooted in a false definition of the word “tolerance.” Wanting to take somebody’s rights away is intolerant. Thinking somebody is an asshole for wanting to take somebody’s rights away is not.

I agree.
Is taking away rights the same as not changing laws to grant rights?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It’s the same as not changing laws to grant equal rights, or to put it more accurately, it’s the same as supporting existing laws which prevent equal rights.

[Measure_for_Measure]

No, we should not tolerate intolerance, but the spiritually advanced should have patience with it.

These are homophonic games. “Tolerate” is not merely the verb form of the antonym of “Intolerance”. To be intolerant is not merely to be “Unaccepting”, and “Intolerance” is really a euphemism for bigotry.

Look, you judge each group on its merits. To be a “Tolerant” person, is merely another way of saying that your rights end where my nose begins.

[Caveat_lector_1]

I think there is often confusion between tolerance and acceptance and approval. You can allow something without thinking it right and even while criticizing it. If someone wants to be an idiot bigot let them. I think limiting their speech is more harmful. However, you are free to call out on it them whatever and to shun them all you want.