The paradox of tolerance, for anyone who doesn’t know is “how do we tolerate the intolerant?” If we believe in free speech, what do we do with people who use free speech to demand others lose their right of free speech.
This is particularly pertinent in a United States where The Felon Administration is denying entry to legal visitors who have the wrong political views (i.e., they don’t approve of The Felon). President Snowflake has made it very clear that for the media to say critical things about him is the worst possible crime a human being can commit. Nobody must hurt his snowflake fee-fees! Pathetic though he is, that attitude in the Oval Office is a serious threat.
And it’s not unique. Florida Republican Randy Fine wants his opponent arrested for (non-existent) voter intimidation. Miami’s mayor wants to shut down a theater screening an anti-Gaza War documentary. Some senators get death threats warning them not to vote against The Felon (and none of them have gone public to push back against it). Even before the current administration we saw Republicans around the country pushing to ban drag shows and restrict schools from saying anything too supportive of gays, trans people, POC, etc.
The right, of course, has been weaponizing tolerance for years — you criticized my homophobia, therefore you’re intolerant! If someone’s uncomfortable airing their opinions for fear of blowback, they’ve been oppressed! Vaccine denialist RFK Jr. says Democrats are more intolerant, no matter what the facts say. If you won’t allow psychiatrists to impose conversion therapy on gays, you’re repressing the doctors’ free speech!
Then there’s the supposedly more neutral argument that if people aren’t actively harmful, judging them for their sincere personal beliefs is wrong. Conservative Christians feel hurt because their views — fascism is tolerable, LGBTQ rights are not — are getting criticized! A perspective that ignores the possibility their views are horrible and they are not, in fact, our moral superiors. This is not some radical insight — religious conservatives have been whining about this for years.
The image below (sorry to the creator — I don’t know the source) attempts to reframe the discussion (I think it’s primarily talking about how we should respond on a personal level rather than a legal/government framework)
For anyone who can’t see it, it’s an argument that tolerance isn’t a moral principle but a contract: if you won’t abide by the rules of mutual tolerance, you’ve broken the contract and aren’t entitled to tolerance yourself.
This is a good way to look at it as far as our individual our group response is concerned. Refusing to associate with the speaker, criticizing them, firing them or not dating conservatives (one of the things RFK thinks is sooooo unfair) is all legit. Ditto saying MAGA attire is not welcome in your business. “Sending them to Coventry” (the old British term for cutting someone out socially) is legit.
It reminds me of an old computer experiment showing that while cheaters win in every transaction with an honest individual, if the honest individual stops dealing with the cheater, honesty wins out in the long run. The cheater will succeed in every transaction but as fewer and fewer people deal with them, they wind up without any contacts and the honest folk win. Similarly, intolerant individuals can keep winning as long as everyone else tolerates them … not so much if that stops.
