I don't see anything "discrediting" the that comment. I think it is very salient to point out that it us much easier to call out intolerance in other people than to face our own intolerance. Weiss's own intolerance doesn't negate the intolerance she faced, instead it reminds us to remember to strive for tolerance within ourselves as well as pushing for it from other people.
>> Can't anyone there see past the current insanity and think? "To be inclusive, we have to get rid of her"? Don't they even hear the words coming out of their own mouths?
This confuses a lot of people, but the explanation is simple: it is the Paradox of Tolerance.
Namely, not tolerating someone, who themselves espouse intolerant views and give voice to intolerant extremists, is not itself intolerance. And Bari Weiss is the perfect example.
> Tolerance of intolerance (e.g., hate speech) leads inevitability to the extinction of tolerance itself.
I would argue that this is an unverified and overblown statement. In fact, I don't even see why this would eventually lead itself to be true, unless you already consider bigotry and hatred to be the majority norm in a very pervasive sense. I could write more on the matter, but others have done some considerable study on the matter [1]. I would say that overall being tolerant of intolerance is a good thing, because these people naturally exclude themselves from social structures and circles of power where they are expected to maintain a leadership role towards those they are bigoted against. Further, by integrating intolerant people with those of us who are tolerant, there is more chance for them to learn why their hatred may be misplaced, and for us to learn where the boundaries of our own personal expression should be.
Thinking merely that we must "stamp out all hatred" is in fact a form of hatred in itself. You can't fight fire with fire here.
> One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them.
No, being a tolerant person means tolerating people even when you find their views wrong, immoral, or heinous. There's nothing impressive about tolerating the views you like and not tolerating the views you don't.
When you find an intolerant person, the right thing to do is to tolerate them. Let them see that you are willing to accept them, even if they are not willing to accept you. That is how views are changed.
This notion that the defense against intolerance is to be intolerant yourself is how society sinks into tit for tat tribalism.
I... don't think I agree? I would count un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance, not tolerance itself. (note: you'd need some other metrics lest THAT go off the rails, to be clear)
The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcing.
You can interpret "tolerance" differently. I will continue to practice the version where I tolerate you until you are intolerant, at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you.
This is rescinding a "right", not requiring action.
> Hate movements throughout history have been supported by logical-sounding arguments for dehumanizing some outgroup
This is a good point and I'll watch out for it. Rescinding tolerance does not have to equate with dehumanization... but yeah, I can see how that often leads there. Seems like an easy way to avoid it is, I could just stop tolerating bigotry, but still extend the compassion and tolerance that I am able to to bigots. Judge behavior rather than people. Which is... well, it's just good practice anyway.
> In my experience, introspective people that constantly doubt and rethink their perception of intolerance are the most tolerant people I've met.
I've found this to be true of many different areas. The more certain you are, the less you're open to continuous learning. Have a well-calibrated idea of your own understanding, and scale your confidence accordingly.
In general, the concept of tolerance and intolerance should be fairly universal; the implementation of tolerance relies on a substantial and growing amount of working social knowledge.
> Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe.
> When a friend of mine heard Eich got fired, she didn’t see anything wrong with it. “I can tolerate anything except intolerance,” she said.
> “Intolerance” is starting to look like another one of those words like “white” and “American”.
> “I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.” Doesn’t sound quite so noble now, does it?
But if instead you phrase it as "i can tolerate anyone except those who attack my in group", it is perhaps not noble but much more understandable, as everyone protects their own.
This is quite the theory - do you have more backing other than the single instance you've just quoted? And what is "intolerance" and why is this "bad"?
> I question if my tolerance is moral often. To be highly moral you probably need to have good intolerances which I'm not capable of.
I don't know about that, there's this one Jewish guy who is taken to be largely morally right that summed up most morality with "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." and at another point said "Love one another". So I don't know if intolerance is really a good thing morally speaking.
Intolerance of the intolerant is often word mincing to justify one's own bigotry.
You only hear about it in reference to all five Nazis or few hundred KKK members, but never in reference to the thousands of articles about the problems with Whiteness.
"I will justify my prejudices in a way that sounds nice to liberal professionals".
>> I'm not sure why everyone is for tolerating the intolerant.
> If you accept intolerance towards intolerance then why bother caring about tolerance in the first place.
I see a lot of my engineer friends struggling with this. Being logical & binary, they think as tolerant people, they need to tolerate intolerance. A lot of their arguments are for defending intolerant people like if bakery doesn't want to serve gay customers, then so be it. Some even go as far as to say that if laundromat doesn't want Black customers, then so be it.
I always point out tolerance is more than a simple word or definition; it is a philosophy and political idea. You tolerate your annoying in-laws; you stand up against discrimination because you believe in a tolerant society.
The real world is not binary nor logical. You have to fight evil in whatever way you can. Intolerance is evil. Turning blind-eye to it or hiding behind logic is essentially accepting intolerance.
I am gonna steelsraw this and make a point that the author is simply arguing for benefits of intolerance when dogmas misalign which maybe good or bad and depends entirely on one’s commitment to her dogmas
reply