Back in the 1940s, the philosopher Karl Popper came up with something called “The Paradox of Tolerance.” It goes like this:
If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people. Eventually, the intolerant people will take over and create a society of intolerance. Therefore, Popper said, to maintain a society of tolerance, the tolerant must be intolerant of intolerance… hence the paradox.
Popper proposed the Paradox of Tolerance to explain why a German public full of otherwise good people allowed Hitler to come to power and commit so many atrocities. Since then, the Paradox of Tolerance has survived and has occasionally become a talking point in discussions about social justice. The idea is that it’s okay to be a piece of shit to someone because they, too, are a piece of shit.
But the problem is that, most of the time, it’s not crystal clear what defines “tolerance” and “intolerance.” If a comedian made a joke about gay people in 2005, is that intolerance? If a scientific study finds that there are significant differences between men and women, is that intolerance? If a really religious person doesn’t want to be friends with a non-religious person, is that intolerance?
