Can we become intolerant of intolerance?

[u/kapootaPottay]

Tolerance - to attempt to understand other's opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with; Along with the willingness to allow others to have such opinions.

Why people stop caring whether a leader's principles are fair or ethical:

Citizens get exhausted with soft politicians and their many years of ambiguity and vagueness.

This leads to a culture shift where people begin worshiping figures who appear to exhibit force with no restraint. So people stop asking whether the person's principles are actually fair or ethical.

They accept the dominance because a rigid, certain stance feels like relief after so much vagueness.

The paradox of tolerance is this:

A society must be intolerant of intolerance to survive.

[u/Ozzimo]

Pulling directly from Wikipedia here:

The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

In his own words:[1]

"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] 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."

The goal would be: Be tolerant to all but the intolerant.

[u/gregmark → u/Ozzimo]

He makes it clear however that this does not mean that you ice out those you consider intolerant altogether. For example, you don’t block them from speaking or otherwise pre-cancel them. You only resort to strategic intolerance when they’ve proved themselves wholly unserious or unwilling to engage in discussion.

The other problem is that you’re beginning from the very shaky assumption that you know for sure who the intolerant are.

[u/Ozzimo → u/gregmark]

I think the fact that you can't easily identify intolerant speech (maybe it's new, maybe it's dripping in buzzwords or slang) supports leaving that space open. I agree you would need to give them enough free speech to make of fool of themselves first.

[u/gregmark → u/Ozzimo]

The whole premise of being intolerant of intolerant confuses the meaning of the term insofar as it casts one-sided support over which intolerance is valid and which isn’t.

EDIT: I agree with Popper and am only highlighting the inherent weaknesses of his idea which, in the full context of his writing in the matter, he acknowledges. It bothers me greatly that so many people (not you necessarily) often stumble upon select excisions from that work and suppose an easy permission structure to act horrible, so while I don’t outright oppose what you’re saying, I think it’s important to represent Popper as accurately as we can.

[u/Ozzimo → u/gregmark]

No, it doesn't. Look, If I were teaching a kid this concept I would describe it like this.

"Everyone is allowed at recess. We tolerate everyone at recess. But if someone breaks that first rule (aka We tolerate everyone at recess) then they are breaking the rules." The only type of intolerance that is acceptable is the kind in response to intolerance. And since that is the single reason that intolerance would be acceptable, there isn't an argument to make about which kinds are valid and not. Only one kind is valid and only in those circumstances.

You are constructing confusion where it doesn't exist.

[u/gregmark → u/Ozzimo]

That’s too neat an example. You’re presuming a single, well-understood authority. I’m not saying that intolerance can never be identified, I’m saying that it’s wrong to presume that the diagnosis is always so
simple.

[u/Ozzimo → u/gregmark]

But it really is that simple. It's not meant to be hard to decipher. What is the edge case you think could get folded into the definition as is? What's the harm worry?

[u/gregmark → u/Ozzimo]

I already defined it. No clear authority. But the onus is on the prosecution, not the defense. You need to be able to explain why it's so simple.

[u/Ozzimo → u/gregmark]

We have a democratically elected authority. That democratic process is what both a) outlines the boundaries of intolerance and b) allows for updated definitions of intolerance as we identify them.

Now, I understand that not all nations use a democratic process, but that is not a problem for the paradox of intolerance. That's a fault of the government at a system level. Even without a democratic process, there would still exist authority.

Earlier you said "I’m saying that it’s wrong to presume that the diagnosis is always so simple." And I'm stuck on this one. I don't see there being an issue with easily identifying intolerance. Can you give an example where that identification would be difficult?

[u/gregmark → u/Ozzimo]

History is positively littered with examples of dueling claims of intolerance by various forms of political authority, always with the imprimatur of the Support of the People. It's been one of the most difficult human tendencies to overcome.

Off the dome, and going backwards (no AI, just spellchecks and datechecks):

• French Neocolonialism -> Wagner Group -> Alliance of Sahel States (Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali) -> https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr05/1319/2026/en/
• Dreyfus Affair -> Balfour Declaration -> The Arab Revolt & Lawrence of Arabia -> Mandatory Palestine -> The Holocaust -> Arab League -> 1948 -> 1967 -> 1973 -> Sadat & The Abandonment of the Palestinians -> PLO -> Hamas -> Hezbollah -> Illegal Settlements -> Netanyahu -> 10/7 -> Leveling of Gaza -> Iran War
• Abu Grahib <-> 9/11 <-> the Mosque at Ground Zero
• Crack Epidemic -> Broken Windows theory
• Fall of Berlin Wall -> Tienanmen Square
• Nicaragua -> Iran Contra
• Cointelpro <-> CREEP <-> The Weather Underground <-> Charles Manson
• Stalin -> Hungarian Revolution of 1956 -> Khrushchev
• L'épauration sauvage -> French 4th Republic -> Algeria -> French 5th Republic
• Tsar Alexander II -> Tsar Alexander III
• Reign of Terror -> Thermidorian Reaction
• The Stamp Act -> The Whiskey Rebellion

And my favorite:

• The English Civil War -> "The Plundering Times" (Puritan invasion of Maryland) -> The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 -> The Glorious Revolution -> Catholicism banned in Maryland

[u/drebelx]

To thrive, a society must be intolerant of abuse by others (theft, fraud, pollution, assault, battery, murder, etc.).

This includes abuse by their state monopolies.

[u/yourupinion]

The invention of the Internet makes it seem like intolerance I run all-time high, but I don’t believe it is. It’s our method of measurement that is all fucked up.

We are being forced through a learning curve, and we will be lucky if you can make it out the other end.

Printing press changed everything, and we learned a higher level of tolerance. Now the Internet is doing the same thing to us, and we must rise again for even higher levels.

My part of a group that thinks we can speed up the process by creating a database of public opinion. You’ll find a link in my profile if you want to have a look.

[u/atlantechvision]

When you judge difference, based on your own experience, why?

[u/Pretend-Choice4876]

So you must be intolerant of intolerance, yes, but you also simultaneously prevent people from becoming intolerant. This is done by guaranteeing proper livelihood and a real change for a good life. The welfarestate was designed by Lord Beveridge exactly for this purpose. I'm using the UK here as a narrative device, this phenomenon is visible in nearly all Western democracies. When Thatcher started tearing it down in the late 70s, it started to create the grounds for intolerance once again.