Tolerance or intolerance

Here's one of those fun word games that are presented in the form of philosophical debates. Even more fun is the way some people today use the game in order to further their own ideologies. Let's start with some definitions from the online dictionaries. "Tolerance" is the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that a person doesn't agree with. "Intolerance" is the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviors that differ from a person's own. And, finally, "tolerate" is to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something a person doesn't like or agree with without interference. Tolerance leads to allowing other people to believe, say, or do something without trying to stop them. Intolerance, is stopping or attempting to stop someone from believing, saying, or doing something because of a difference of belief or opinion. In short, the philosophy of tolerance can be stated as "live and let live" or "you do your thing and I'll do mine". Or is it?

Many people out there are attempting to eliminate intolerance from the world. However, this creates a paradox. If the people who promote tolerance are trying to eliminate intolerance from people's way of thinking, doesn't that make them intolerant of intolerant people? The answer is, of course, yes. But the philosophers have a way around this conundrum. Here's what Karl Popper says about it:

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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 most 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."

Interesting little quote. But there are some things that need clarification.
- Who is to determine which people are being intolerant? The people who try to apply the label are doing so on what they believe to be right or wrong. So who is to make the final decision about who is right and who is wrong?
- Who determines which argument, for or against something, is the rational one and is the only one that should apply to any given situation?
- Why does the inundation of public opinion in order to sway the people labeled as intolerant supposedly make the people who label themselves as tolerant correct in their opinions? Just because there are more public service announcements, social media posts, and so on from people who are labeling themselves as the most tolerant claiming the actions or statements of other people are intolerant doesn't make their statements any more true. This especially applies when the majority of the population disagrees with with what is being labeled as tolerant.
- Why resort to making a difference of opinions and beliefs a crime? This is what the quote is saying. If the words are deemed intolerant and the intolerant person or group of people continue to attempt to convince other people their beliefs and opinions are correct, they should be deemed to be committing illegal acts.

So here's how the ideology of a tolerant society works. A group of people, often the minority of a population, decides what's to be labeled tolerant or intolerant. Their arguments for their decisions are made upon the rational arguments they create and have deemed to be the only rational arguments. The arguments of the intolerant people are deemed to be irrational and must be counteracted by the inundation of "public opinion" even if the majority of the public disagrees with what's being said. And, finally, if the intolerant people can't be swayed into believing what the so-called tolerant people want them to believe, the intolerant people must be treated as criminals and punished for having the wrong beliefs and opinions. Welcome to the world as envisioned by George Orwell where a select few people claim only they can determine what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior based on arguments they determine are the only rational ones and, if you don't submit to their way of thinking, you must be "re-educated" or, if that doesn't work, you must be punished as a criminal.

So which beliefs and opinions are the most tolerant? Those of the people labeled as intolerant by the people who are trying to create a tolerant society or by the people who, in their opinion, are the most tolerant of all beliefs and opinions? The people who say they're the most tolerant of people will probably claim this article just goes to show that I'm intolerant of tolerant people. In the quote provided, Popper says the tolerant have the right to not tolerate the intolerant. I'll flip that back on them. If they have that right, intolerant people have the right not to tolerate the tolerant.