Tolerance of intolerance
About
Tolerance of intolerance (aka the paradox of tolerance) is the idea of tolerating ideas and actions which are themselves intolerant. It is usually expressed in other forms, most commonly in defense of intolerant forms of religion and other right wing causes. It is generally a form of performative leftism, where the progressive ideal of "tolerance" is being used to shield anti-left ideas from criticism.
Conclusions
While it may sound like scoring a point to accuse someone of being intolerant of X, if the X is itself an intolerant view, then tolerating it would actually be an act of passive intolerance, while not tolerating it actually supports the goals of tolerance.
Put another way, tolerance is a peace treaty. If you behave intolerantly, you lose the benefits of the treaty.
"Being intolerant of intolerance" does not promote intolerance any more than "taking trash to the trash can" promotes littering. If the objection is worded more precisely – e.g. "We should not be willing to accept arbitrary exclusionism." or "We must physically resist attempts to hurt people for no good reason." – it becomes much easier to see that there is no violation of principle involved in being intolerant of intolerance.
Attacks on intolerance of intolerance are, therefore, essentially a form of trolling: they're supporting intolerance while hiding behind an argument that is framed as support of tolerance.
Taxonomy
While the idea that one should tolerate intolerance is a sort of troll concept, "tolerance of intolerance" is not itself a troll phrase since it is generally intended to expose the essential trolling nature of arguments which are based upon it by making its logical flaw more glaring. Trolls rarely argue explicitly for a need to be "tolerant of intolerance", since that would more or less give the game away, although an implicit argument for "tolerance of intolerant people" has been spotted in the wild[1].
Analogy
The basic argument that we should be more tolerant of intolerant people lest we behave intolerantly can be boiled down to this exchange[2]:
- A: You must accept that I have a right to hit you for no reason, or I'll hit you.
- B: No, I won't accept that. We should discuss our differences, not hit each other.
- A: Okay, how about let's compromise -- you accept that I have a right to hit you sometimes for no reason. If you don't, then I'll hit you.
- B: No, I don't accept that you ever have the right to hit me.
- A: So if I try to hit you, you'll physically try to stop me?
- B: Yes, I will.
- A: You realize that means we'd be fighting.
- B: Yes, I accept that.
- A: You just want to settle everything with violence, don't you. You won't even compromise!
Links
Reference
News
News
- 2019/10/21 [L..T] Statement on GitLab "The MoodleNet team use products and services from GitLab Inc. to develop the MoodleNet code base. We were therefore disappointed to learn of a recent decision by GitLab Inc. to change their policies around who they will and will not do business with."
- 2014/05/29 [L..T] Michael Bloomberg: Universities becoming bastions of intolerance "Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, delivering Thursday's commencement speech at Harvard University, criticized what he described as a disturbing trend of liberals silencing voices 'deemed politically objectionable.'"
- 2013/07/09 15:22 UTC [L..T] Ender's Game author Orson Scott Card issues plea for tolerance of his intolerance of gays «just like the Stonewall rioters, Card is here to say he’s finally had enough of being hounded simply for his way of life that involves decrying others' way of life.» If this had happened circa 2020, he'd doubtless be decrying cancel culture and demanding his right of freeze peach as well.
to file
- 2017-01-02 Tolerance is not a moral precept by Yonatan Zunger: it is a contract, not a principle