The paradox of The Paradox of Tolerance

How to deal with intolerance?

The paradox of tolerance is the idea that if you tolerate everything, including intolerance, eventually the intolerance will take over and the net result will be a less tolerant space. Philosopher Karl Popper described it as “The seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”

I often see this idea touted by the online left as a justification for ostracizing people they disagree with, and taking a hardline stance in the culture war. And on it’s face there’s some logic to this—but I think there’s a few problems happening under the surface that complicate things.

#1 Who defines intolerance? What if some people don’t agree? 

Everyone is the protagonist of their own story. Many republicans believe themselves to be discriminated against because of their political views. Now, you may say “we’re not tolerating them for a good reason though! They aren’t tolerant of who we are! We’re just not tolerating their behavior!” But from their perspective, you are not tolerant of who they are, and they simply aren’t tolerant of that. 

If we take a step back and examine what’s happening here, we’re basically yelling “Well, they started it!” like kids on a playground. We’re not hearing each other. We’re talking past one another, each with our own perspectives on what tolerance looks like. 

Think about the language republicans use. “Queer people are an assault on the traditional family.” To me, that reads like they have needs for acceptance and stability that aren’t being met. I also have needs for acceptance and stability. We all have the same basic human needs, and if we learn to listen, not to the words they are saying, but for the deeper needs beneath those words, we can find some common ground on which to build tolerance.

#2 You can’t actually control other people’s behavior. 

Deciding that you “aren’t going to tolerate what someone’s doing” does not magically make that behavior stop. You might be able to stop them from doing this in a particular space, but you’re really just kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with it. 

Writing people off as lost causes, and severing them from their communities does nothing to help them grow as a person. Humans evolved to live in groups; our need for community is hard-wired into our DNA. People are going to look for community wherever they can find it. When we are intolerant of others’ intolerance by shaming them or banning them from spaces, we aren’t actually doing the work of fostering mutual understanding, we’re just banishing them to echo chambers in the dark corners of the internet. That’s how you get 4chan. 

Protecting society by exiling the “bad people” is the same logic that underlies the prison system. 

Transformative change is slow, tender work. It requires time, genuine curiosity, and emotional safety for both parties to let down their guard and share their vulnerabilities. 

And, hey, sometimes you don’t have the spoons for that work. That’s fine. You’re allowed to have your personal boundaries. But I just wish we would stop pretending like deepening our alienation from one another is somehow revolutionary in nature.

My vision for the revolution is one where we can all find ways to connect and see the humanity in the other across differences, not just superficial ones like skin color or sexual orientation, but in perspectives and worldviews too. And this isn’t just abstract philosophical rambling, this has important practical significance too. Any large scale socialist movement is going to require buy-in from a vast majority of the population, including millions of people who currently hold opinions you find offensive. Socialism is about unifying everyone together under the common goal of meeting our human needs. We can’t just write off huge swaths of people as being “intolerant” and then expect to have any meaningful political power. For this vision to be realized, we need to learn how to work through conflicts, not just cast judgment upon people who act in ways we don’t like.

#3 Why is it assumed that intolerance is infectious but tolerance isn’t? 

There seems to be an implied assumption in the paradox of tolerance that, if left unchecked, intolerance will automatically spread and overpower tolerance. I do not believe this to be a foregone conclusion. 

Take for example, Daryl Davis and the KKK.

Daryl Davis is a black blues musician who was puzzled by how racism could lead people to hate him when they didn’t even know him. With an air of genuine curiosity, he set about to understand this by arranging a meeting with the imperial wizard of the KKK, Roger Kelly. Their first contact was tense and scary, but as they continued to spend time together, things slowly grew more comfortable. Eventually Kelly left the Klan, and, years later, even named Davis as the godfather of his child. Throughout his life, Daryl Davis continued to befriend KKK members, dozens of whom left the Klan as they grew to see him as a person rather than the racist caricature they had initially thought. 

This was only possible because Davis approached them with tolerance, patience, and a genuine intent to understand them. He did not agree with their perspectives, but he still treated them with respect, and in the end they learned to respect him too. 

Sometimes on the left it’s like there’s this fear that engaging in good faith with people whose politics differ from our own will taint us, and we will become corrupted by their influence. But if we operate under this assumption, we are shutting ourselves off from the possibility that we could learn anything of value from someone who doesn’t already agree with us, as well as the possibility to develop a deeper connection with them that allows us to be heard in a more meaningful way.

It is like Martin Luther King Jr. said in his 1962 speech at Cornell College:

“I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. 

They fear each other because they don’t know each other.

And they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other.

And they don’t communicate with each other because they are separated from each other.”

We can not solve a problem caused by alienation with more alienation.