Yes. Being intolerant in the name of tolerance is ironic

And it's known as the paradox of tolerance.

Every time someone advocates denouncing, fighting against, or banning something in the name of tolerance or liberalism, you can be sure there will be screeches of "hypocrisy" and "the irony!". What these people don't realise is that the very nature of trying to maintain a tolerant society is ironic. It's known as the paradox of tolerance, and this quote from Karl Popper explains it eloquently: "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 the end, it comes down to picking the intolerances you wish to be intolerant of. There is really no escaping this. For example, if there were an ideology which advocated and encouraged the subjugation of women, you could either be opposed to that intolerance, or you could be opposed to the intolerance of that intolerant ideology. We had to be intolerant of the Nazi's in order to stop their extreme levels of intolerance. But if you wanted, you could be against the intolerance of their intolerance. It's up to you. It's like if you have a party, and a man arrives who starts being homophobic to your two gay friends, racist to your black friend, misogynistic to a girl for wearing a short skirt, or bigoted to your Muslim friend. Do you tolerate his intolerance? Will you even go as far as defending him against those who attack him, in the name of being intolerant of intolerance for his intolerance? Or will you kick him out, to preserve a generally tolerant atmosphere? It's up to you, and neither action can be objectively said to serve the cause of tolerance more than the other.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 1

1010marina

If you make someone feel uncomfortable or abuse them in any way then you are the intolerant jerk. If you're the person trying to stop the victim suffering you are being intolerant of nastiness which is clearly worse.

You can't compare hating terrorists to terrorists hating society, for example. Terrorists, abusers, etc., they're not worthy of your respect and do not deserve it. It is not "negative" intolerance to hate abuse. Just confused morals.

Reply 2

KingBradly

Original post by 1010marina

I agree. With intolerance to jihadists, its a case of whether you're willing to be intolerant in defense of liberal soceity, or intolerant in defense of Islamofacism. I happen to go for the former.

Reply 3

Pinkberry_y

So does that mean either way everyone is always intolerant to something

Reply 4

Studentus-anonymous

Reminds me of Bremainers after the ref and this journo's quote:

[remainers] overlooking the irony of their pontificating about prejudice while suggesting that the 17.5million people who said No to the EU, this vast swathe of people, is a tabloid-poisoned blob given to disliking foreign people.

For me the only thing intolerable is the fundamentally intolerant.

The minute you think you have the right to dictate to others regardless of their well-being or wishes, is the minute you become intolerable.

Wanna worship your Arabian tribal god-come universal creator? Go for it.
Wanna demand your wife/daughter covers herself, or enforce racial segregation, or impose sharia law on others? Eat a grenade.

Reply 5

Retired_Messiah

Original post by Pinkberry_y

So does that mean either way everyone is always intolerant to something

Yes.

Reply 6

AperfectBalance

Original post by 1010marina

So me saying Allah does not exist will make some people feel uncomfortable, saying I Put milk in before the water when making tea will make people feel uncomfortable, saying someone is wrong will make some people uncomfortable. Should we ban any of these?