Should we tolerate intolerance? -paradox of intolerance

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Off Topic > Topic Details

WarHeRo 17 Sep, 2024 @ 1:52pm

Do we still have the right to defend ourselves, or must we simply endure all forms of intolerance? If we refuse to tolerate intolerance, are we contradicting our own commitment to tolerance?

Where do you draw the line? Have you ever tolerated intolerance yourself?

Do you agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she says, "Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"? How could the world function if it didn't, at some level, tolerate intolerance?

Originally posted by Karl Popper:
in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance

Originally posted by John Rawls:
...we should tolerate intolerance, or else the society will itself become intolerant... in extreme consequences, a tolerant society still has the right to self defense,

Originally posted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice

< >

Showing 1-15 of 74 comments

Boblin the Goblin 17 Sep, 2024 @ 1:57pm

Look at that, the classic misrepresenting of the Karl Popper quote.

WarHeRo 17 Sep, 2024 @ 1:58pm

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:
Look at that, the classic misrepresenting of the Karl Popper quote.

correct me then?

Steve 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:09pm

Tolerance was pushed on the masses to get them to accept having everything taken away from them. You will own nothing and be happy... or else.

WarHeRo 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:13pm

Originally posted by Dr. Staten Island:
Tolerance was pushed on the masses to get them to accept having everything taken away from them. You will own nothing and be happy... or else.

the gov pushed it? so the gov is intolerant?

Boblin the Goblin 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:14pm

Originally posted by WarHeRo:
Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:
Look at that, the classic misrepresenting of the Karl Popper quote.
correct me then?

Put the full quote.

He explains the idea more literally before the quote posted in the OP.

Steve 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:16pm

Originally posted by WarHeRo:
Originally posted by Dr. Staten Island:
Tolerance was pushed on the masses to get them to accept having everything taken away from them. You will own nothing and be happy... or else.
the gov pushed it? so the gov is intolerant?

Kind of. I view government as the floor managers and security guards of this shopping mall we call Earth.

TwisterCat 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:21pm

And "No" means? Harass and de-fund everybody who disagrees with you, like a ♥♥♥♥♥, that couldn't even look their own mother in her eyes? (Apologies, that was a bit harsh of a thing to say, EH?)

Those intolerable, but "tolerable" people have no means to enforce their ideology, but through economical force. They can't actually change the world, so they bust your balls if you don't play along.

Last edited by TwisterCat; 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:44pm

WarHeRo 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:21pm

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:
Originally posted by WarHeRo:
correct me then?
Put the full quote.

He explains the idea more literally before the quote posted in the OP.

is this enough?

Originally posted by Karl Raimund 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. 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.

o 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:22pm

yes, tolerance can involve cajoling and wheedling and often does. although, some things just don't change.

TwisterCat 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:22pm

Aye, OP. We should tolerate the intolerable. It's foolish to think you can just control people without there being consequences.

Or rather, they should tolerate us, and stop disrupting society.

Last edited by TwisterCat; 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:23pm

#10

WarHeRo 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:22pm

Originally posted by Dr. Staten Island:
Originally posted by WarHeRo:
the gov pushed it? so the gov is intolerant?
Kind of. I view government as the floor managers and security guards of this shopping mall we call Earth.

so we r enforced to tolerate the intolerant to be allowed to live freely?

#11

WarHeRo 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:23pm

Originally posted by TwisterCat:
Aye, OP. We should tolerate the intolerable. It's foolish to think you can just control people without there being consequences.

where do u draw the line

#12

Pierce Dalton 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:25pm

No, those that tolerate evil become evil themselves.

#13

Kate Hikes 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:25pm

Tolerance put us in the position we're in today.

#14

Swarmfly 17 Sep, 2024 @ 2:26pm

Worked out for dairy products just fine. My ancestors' stomachs were forced to tolerate them so that I can consume them with utter impunity many generations down the line.