{"id":45998,"date":"2025-04-30T16:33:48","date_gmt":"2025-04-30T16:33:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/buildersmovement.org\/?p=45998"},"modified":"2025-05-01T10:43:34","modified_gmt":"2025-05-01T10:43:34","slug":"objection-paradox-tolerance-polarization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buildersmovement.org\/2025\/04\/30\/objection-paradox-tolerance-polarization\/","title":{"rendered":"The Paradox of Tolerance: Should We Not Tolerate Some Views?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In our efforts to overcome <\/span>toxic political polarization<\/span><\/a>, one objection we hear again and again, especially from those on the political left, is: <\/span>\u201cYou\u2019re asking us to be more tolerant, but we can\u2019t be tolerant of intolerance.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This relates to a concept known as the \u201c<\/span>paradox of tolerance<\/span><\/a>,\u201d articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in the 1940s. After witnessing the rise of fascism in Europe, Popper warned that if a tolerant society tolerates intolerant ideologies, it risks being destroyed by them. The paradox is that too much tolerance can lead to intolerance winning and taking over. One of Popper\u2019s famous quotes goes: <\/span>\u201cIn the name of tolerance, we should claim the right not to tolerate the intolerant.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This idea resonates for good reason. Many people, especially those worried about threats to vulnerable groups, feel that engaging with certain ideas, or even just being civil to those who hold them, could legitimize real harm. When someone believes that basic human rights are up for debate, they understandably resist \u201cagreeing to disagree.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

We get that. There are lines we all must draw, and we aren\u2019t here to tell you where those lines are for you.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Intolerance is sometimes in the eye of the beholder<\/b><\/h3>\n

Here\u2019s one problem, though. In today\u2019s polarized environment, that same argument \u2014 \u201cwe can\u2019t tolerate the intolerant\u201d \u2014 is used by people on both sides to justify shutting each other out.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In a polarized country like ours, where we have such divergent views<\/a> on what\u2019s right and what\u2019s wrong, what\u2019s fair and unfair, what\u2019s democratic and undemocratic, often intolerance will be <\/i>in the eye of the beholder<\/i><\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Often we\u2019ll simply be wrong about what we think the \u201cother side\u201d believes and what they want. We\u2019ll often have <\/span>overly pessimistic<\/span><\/a> views of \u201cthem,\u201d and be too quick to assume hate and malicious motives when simpler, more rational explanations suffice.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, many Democrats think GOP-associated stances on immigration are <\/span>rooted in racism<\/span><\/a>. But that\u2019s an incorrect assumption, as many non-white citizens <\/span>share similar stances<\/span><\/a> on immigration. (Read more here <\/span>about our immigration divides<\/span><\/a>.)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Some liberals interpret conservative-associated stances on transgender- and gender-related issues as being largely due to bigotry, no matter how non-bigoted or hateful the arguments expressed are, and no matter that some of those stances are held by an ideologically diverse set of people<\/a> (and even some transgender people<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Of course, it isn’t only people on the left who reach for worst-case interpretations. Many conservatives reach for <\/span>worst-case interpretations<\/span> of liberal-side motivations, on a variety of issues. For example, some describe criticisms of Trump, no matter how measured and defensible, as motivated by hatred of Trump or hatred of conservative views, or due to <\/span>\u201cTrump derangement syndrome.”<\/span><\/a> Some speak as if liberals are purposefully out to destroy America<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We’re at risk of being the intolerant ones<\/b><\/h3>\n

When we\u2019re in a toxic conflict, our pessimism about the other side\u2019s motivations <\/span>can put us at risk of being the intolerant ones<\/span><\/i>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Some argue that Popper <\/span>wasn\u2019t advocating for suppressing speech and ideas<\/span><\/a> seen as hateful or extreme, but arguing that at some specific, dangerous point (for example, Nazis taking over a country), it <\/span>can be correct to take extreme actions<\/span><\/a> that one normally wouldn\u2019t take. From that point of view, those who use Popper\u2019s \u201cparadox of tolerance\u201d to shut down debate and not allow free speech are actually the ones Popper would have criticized as intolerant.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

(Source: <\/span>this piece by Aashay Mody)<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

And then some argue that the problem, if it reaches a point like Nazi Germany, has little to do with tolerance, but about people acting in violent, dehumanizing ways that deprive people of basic rights. The philosopher John Rawls <\/span>said<\/span><\/a> the liberties of the \u201cintolerant\u201d should be constrained only when they affect the liberties of others.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What if we’re sure something is intolerant?<\/b><\/h3>\n

Even when you think someone\u2019s stance is intolerant, it\u2019s not a given that responding with contempt or trying to aggressively censor those views will help. In fact, there\u2019s evidence that trying to shut down and isolate views we dislike can actually make them stronger. (One study from Europe showed attempts to aggressively police far-right ideas <\/span>seemed to help them grow in popularity<\/span><\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

When we harshly judge others and paint their views as off-limits, it can push people deeper into binary, \u201cus vs. them\u201d thinking and make our divisions worse. Those people with opposite views further retreat into their in-groups.(And because we misunderstand each other, we\u2019ll sometimes wrongly label someone\u2019s views as hateful, adding even more fuel to the us-versus-them fire.)<\/span><\/p>\n

A powerful example of less polarizing approaches to intolerance comes from <\/span>Daryl Davis<\/span><\/a>, a Black musician who has influenced many white supremacists to renounce their racism \u2014 just by talking with them respectfully. Obviously not everyone is capable of doing what Daryl has done, but his story reminds us that <\/span>the most powerful form of persuasion involves treating others with compassion and respect. <\/span><\/i>Many have written about the <\/span>hidden power of tolerance and compassion<\/span><\/a>, even in the face of intolerance and hate.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Let’s say you believe a leader is enacting intolerant, harmful policies. Even if that’s true, we should recognize that what to do about that is far from clear. A stance that “We can’t tolerate this” doesn’t lead to obvious answers about what to do about that. For one thing, a fundamental challenge of democracy<\/a> is that it can lead, in legitimate ways, to outcomes that many citizens find harmful and unfair<\/a>. Our political opponents will, in the same way, find our<\/em> preferred policies to be harmful and unfair.<\/p>\n

We are not here to tell anyone how to behave when they perceive harm being done, but we believe it’s important for everyone to recognize that, in a democratic republic like ours, our fellow citizens do have political power and have the ability to enact their will \u2014<\/span> even when we see their will as doing harm.<\/p>\n

How to move forward when we see intolerance<\/b><\/h3>\n

So what can we do when we think our opponents are behaving intolerantly?<\/span><\/p>\n