The closest thing to perfect tolerance would be martyrs who let themselves be tortured to death rather than renounce their beliefs. But we live in a society that is liberal in the sense that we can usually express our opinions freely. That shouldn't be confused with the modern abuse of the label "liberal". You are not obliged to tolerate, that is, to remain silent about, the intolerance displayed by self-described "liberals". "Liberal" tolerance is an oxymoron. "Liberals" mock the gentle Amish, advocate the murder of helpless innocents such as the unborn and Terry Schiavo, show tacit approval to discrimination against and hate crimes committed against people of a certain skin tone, and even revel in the suffering of anyone who thinks differently than they do. Very little about them is truly liberal, except in the meaning of abundance, as in their self-righteousness, self-indulgence, running their mouths and spending other people's money. I enjoy to point out their contradictions, and freely admit that makes me intolerant. But that honest intolerance is still better than their false righteousness.
By expecting other people to be just as tolerant as you, you are going against your own beliefs. You would almost have to be tolerant of intolerance in order to be considered "tolerant" in the first place. Otherwise you would only be defending tolerant people, and therefore only people who had some similarity to yourself.
Tolerant people should tolerate intolerance, within reason. The free speech of intolerant people should not be infringed, for example. However, there is no need to tolerate intolerance of a form that actively attacks the rights of everyone in the society; for example, even tolerant people should stand up against racism when it means someone's rights are being violated.
HELLO, I am Saketh
we should never tolerate intolerance, but this does not mean that we thould verbally and physically harm him. Gandhi ji had fought against intolerance in a peacful way. So we must oppose intolerance be explaining him.We mostly do not help people who are being bullied, but if it is someone related to us then we oppose. The people of the world are of one brotherhood.So if we want a tolerant world, we must be tolerant and oppose intolerance in a peaceful way as a change beigns from us.
There are so many voices out there pushing their views and saying they just want to be accepted by everyone. But many are at fault when they do not allow others to carry their own opinions and use their own voice.
A good example is they pro-gay movement. There is an vocal angry minority that gives the whole crowd a bad name. Simple by bashing everyone who does not agree with them, calling them hateful merely because people do not support the pro-gay position.
If you don't tolerate intolerance then you yourself are intolerant and therefore are the thing you are intolerant to. Obviously this is a contradiction so you must be tolerant towards people who are intolerant. If you don't want to create a paradox you have to be tolerant of all things.
People who define themselves as tolerants should tolerate intolerance.
I think that tolerant people who don't tolerate somebody because he is intolerant go against tolerance because they don't accept a way of thinking.
Tolerant people should in my opinion accept every point of view even if they disagree.
I know it's hard to tolerate intolerance but people who do it are real tolerant people and are in my opinion wise people.
Life is always easier when you accept all, you don't go against the things, you just let the things be like they are.
Sorry for the mistakes, english is not my mother tongue.
Have a good day :)
Otherwise you are intolerant ... Or worse a Hypocrite or have a hidden agenda behind your so called tolerance, that is, a limited tolerance is also intolerance. Take those countries that have Sharia Law and ban other religions under penalty of death.....Now take Western Countries who allow THESE SAME PEOPLE to practice and live their beliefs .... (not saying all Muslims in the USA, for example, espouse Sharia Law, but there are some who DO FOLLOW these beliefs pushing their limits against US Law) . Makes sense?
By not tolerating intolerance, what you are effectively saying is that you do not believe those views should be expressed. In a way, you are stifling views you do not want to be expressed by punishing those who state them. It is true that society must have some level of self-preservation and that might include not tolerating intolerance. But what that then implies is that a truly tolerant sustainable society does not and cannot exist.
No one truly believes that everyone is free to practice whatever they feel is right. If one feels that child rape is right, many would disagree.
People are only tolerant of the beliefs that coincide with their own beliefs. Those that preach that something should be tolerated are using the word as a power play to marginalize someone else's beliefs when they disagree.
Karl Popper wrote, "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 response to the first YES commenter - it is not hypocritical for an advocate of tolerance to also advocate intolerance of the intolerant. What would you have otherwise? It's not about 'defending people who are similar' at all. It's about defending beliefs and standards of behavior that promote the universal respect of individuals without a thought to measuring the worth of their identities.
Germany is a relatively tolerant society today. They have banned Naziism and Holocaust denial. Allowing those ideals to flourish in public would leave the door open for Germany to revert to a state of extreme intolerance, as they have experienced in the past. It's natural not to tolerate intolerance when you know the real-world result of institutionalized intolerance.
Respecting free speech is another question. If you are free to speak about your belief in racial hatred, for instance, I am free to call your speech hateful idiocy, and abuse your evil opinions. My exercise of free speech in response to yours does not impinge on your right.
Intolerance is unfair. Ignoring it is wrong as well. It is not intolerant to call out unfair attitudes or actions.A good example is the requirement of a minimum of words here. It is unfair to require a certain amount of words.This is why I speak out.I am not being "intolerant" ,just stating the obvious bias toward concise,clear thinking.
Intolerant people are very negative. Despite the fact that being tolerant implies: "showing respect for the rights, opinions or practices of others", "showing or characterized by broad-mindedness" and "showing the capacity for endurance", I firmly believe that we have to show that intolerance is out of place, very negative and destructive. I'm tolerant to those who are tolerant, but won't turn the other cheek to those who are intolerant, and encourage them by accepting their negative attitude.
When you do not oppose a system or idea that is degrading, harmful, and morally wrong then you are no worse than those perpetrating the ideals set forth. We mustn't be scared to call out the injustices of our fellow humans. When something isn't right not speaking or trying to right a wrong seems to only be a secret reinforcement of negative ideas and behaviors.
If we were talking about the words in absolute terms then this would be a different debate. But we don't live in a world of absolutes and to label a person as tolerant or not and then expand that to the absolute is absurd. It's akin to saying that if you don't love everyone and everything you can not love anyone or anything. We are all tolerant of some things and intolerant of others. A person can be a very tolerant person and still be intolerant of bad behavior and hateful ideas. The majority of those who seem to have a problem with this are the ones that want their intolerance of differing ethnicity and gender to be the equivalent of intolerance of bigotry and hate. Sorry folks, but there a difference. Admittedly, it's a difference of values and as such neither universal nor absolute.
The external environment is constantly changing. This means that new perspectives and ideas must develop in order to react and adapt to new conditions. An intolerant perspective is one that is incapable of acknowledging and adapting to external change. Failing to adapt to change means a failure of that society.
Tolerance from its definition means "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry." It doesn't mean tolerance of something morally wrong. If we take the negation of the definition above, it's the definition of intolerance, and I think it is clear that something like that is morally (and can be also legally) wrong.
Were we to tolerate it, racism and homophobia would flourish, we would have another Third Reich. We would have the inquisition back (how can you be intolerant of my torturing those innocent people?). That is why I firmly believe that one should not tolerate the intolerant. Thanks for reading. :)
There is no workable way of generalizing tolerance toward all behavior of humans. It would seem to me that tolerance toward disagreeable behavior is the most useful way of not raising issues regarding the emotional and mental well-being of any individual, it is shorthand silencing based on an abstract principal, that people should just be tolerant because that is what tolerant people do. People have personal needs and nobody has better access to locate, care for or fulfill individual emotional and intellectual needs than individuals themselves. Nobody should ever be told to disregard their own thoughts or feelings on account of "tolerance."
intolerance on the other hand is also an absurdly homogenized concept. It is used to describe a very wide scope of attitudes and actions, from violent policing of others to basically any form of non-cooperation or disobedience.
So to cut through this gross oversimplification, no, these are not two concepts that one must pick between, they are a whole array of attitudes, behaviors and feelings that are case-specifically differentiable. So in general, the question is wrong, and to me that equals a definite no. We need useful concepts, not this binary crud.
Treating tolerance in absolute terms and living up to it would ultimately prevent tolerant people to fight for their beliefs and we'll end up in a society where tolerance doesn't exist as a virtue. I like the analogy in one of the previous comments that having jails in the 'land of the free' is NOT hypocritical.