Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance
Ok, intolerance of intolerance is also intolerance
It’s a bit of a paradox
Let’s be instrumental — let’s say goal is to minimise intolerance
Then we must be intolerant of intolerance
So that the only intolerance left is that of intolerance
You’re only permitted to be intolerant of intolerance
You’re only permitted to be intolerant of intolerance
If you’re tolerant of intolerance — it may be difficult to eradicate it
In practice: some norms naturally disseminate
The value of tolerance may disseminate — and supersede the vice of intolerance
…but it may not
In which case — you choose to be instrumentally intolerant
Intolerant of intolerance
CONVERSELY
If you’re intolerant of the intolerance for intolerance — you AGAIN get TOLERANCE OF INTOLERANCE
Which again, can, and often does, result in more intolerance — if the virtue of tolerance fails to disseminate
This contrived sentence serves a point
Intolerance of intolerance is necessary, instrumental and necessary
Intolerance of intolerance of intolerance is some weird, sick, emergent perversion — that is actually not uncommon today
It genuinely emerged, paradoxical as it sounds
See, if you’re always tolerant EXCEPT against unpremeditated intolerance — then you’re NOT intolerant of intolerance of intolerance. Because that would be, well, intolerant
So when you preach that intolerance of intolerance is so intolerant…
…in not tolerating it — you’re yourself intolerant
EXCEPT, you don’t have a wise reason
Intolerance of intolerance is instrumental. It looks to decrease intolerance in net
Intolerance of intolerance of intolerance is just weird reaction to a world that is not perfectly tolerant already
And paradoxically is made more intolerant by that very act
The point of this entire word salad is that
you GENUINELY can’t have TOLERANCE without UNDERSTANDING INTOLERANCE FOR INTOLERANCE, the Popper’s famous paradox of tolerance
Because then you have people get intolerant because of the perceived intolerance toward a group that is, in fact, intolerant
And OF COURSE who decides who’s tolerant? So sometimes intolerance of intolerance will just be intolerance
But that is a technical problem — not philosophical
It does not refute the necessity for intolerance of intolerance,
and necessity of tolerance for intolerance of intolerance
In practice,
we must be very clear of the FEW THINGS we DON’T TOLERATE as a society
And THEN be maximally tolerant,
And then AGAIN be intolerant of those who want to destroy this virtue of tolerance
But it all starts with deciding the few things that we can’t tolerate
Including intolerance (of things we choose to tolerate, we choose as human and civil)
Can you see?
You just can’t have TOLERANCE without intolerance
Anyone who wants tolerance without intolerance is ultimately harming the virtue of tolerance — because he destroys it by:
-permitting intolerance
-and by betraying that which is worth tolerating, and protecting — by equalising it with any random thing arbitrarily as worthy of being tolerated as that thing itself
The essence are thus the core values
Those values are protected, cherished
We are not tolerant of those who want to destroy those values
And tolerance itself is one such value
But then we are tolerant of everything else
Because humanity, society, individuals — are rich and diverse
and complex and inestimable
therefore we don’t want to force everyone into the same mold of the same values
WITH the exception of the few core values which emerged as the basis of society
INCLUDING tolerance
If that is not understood — you don’t get tolerance
You don’t get much good either