Humanist philosopher, Sir Karl Popper, on the paradox of tolerance:
'Less well known 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.'
He was born on this day in 1902.
I agree. However I see also see a dialectic at play in tolerance vs intolerance. Any prohibition on intolerance should be against violent action in support of its ideals. One of the greatest ways to show tolerance and demonstrate its strength is to engage with the intolerant where possible and eventually convince them of the weakness of their position. A weakness gauranteed by a prohibition against violent action. Because isn't one of the greatest strengths of tolerance the inclusion of all people in having basic human rights?
How do you convince murderous fundamentalist religious people that killing infidels and apostates is not to be tolerated?
@anglophone The sameway violent, angry, murderous racists were overcome by the civil rights movement. And if you can't convince them then ensure they lack the means and/or ability to act. People are not born into hate, they are indoctrinated over time. And hostility will only further their sense of otherness. Violent suppresion would only produce martyrs. What makes an indoctrination into vioent radicalism possible is exclusion and feelings of helplesness.
It was perhaps 10 years ago that I recognised the need to limit tolerance to the tolerable, and that unlimited tolerance is potentially suicidal, as unlimited tolerance means that I will tolerate anybody choosing to kill me.
I am more recently come to that conclusion. However, I choose to permanently disengage, rather than voice any sentiment, because I know it is a waste of time. That said, I will continue to work for overall social change.