> Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant.
How does it not? At some point things come into conflict. As an example, religious views that condemn homosexuality as evil. Adherents of those views will, given the power, happily prevent gay marriage by force, or much worse. If you want to defend tolerance, you will have to stop them from doing that, also by force (political or otherwise). There is no way out of that.
I defined it. Intolerance is not a legitimate viewpoint. It is not the expression of an idea, but the suppression of someone else's. I think I was pretty clear, I consider intolerance the one viewpoint we cannot tolerate. Everything else is fair game.
He's not advocating for a world free of intolerance; in fact, he advocates for the use of intolerance when necessary, and describes when it is necessary. Intolerance can be rational, after all; and intolerance can be moral.
FWIW, I am aware of the full quote because I've seen it elsewhere; but then, I used to spend quite a lot of time arguing on the intarwebs.
I also like being able to justify intolerance towards anyone I want by labeling them "intolerant". Same as only caring about those I want to care about and only supporting free speech that I agree with. Makes everything much easier.
The problem with that argument is that there are many groups of people it's ok to be intolerant toward, according to the people making such judgements.
A more accurate statement would be "tolerate all but people who offend certain favored groups".
You should understand that does not apply here. That quote doesn't extend to defending intolerance, because it is wholly incompatible with it.
This isn't surprising, but context is often lost with that quote. Think about it for a second, how can you advocate that you would defend one's freedom to limit one's freedom?
> 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.
reply