[Cantbekhan]

At some point I think we have to consider the view of Karl Popper: "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 this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

The problem remains as who defines what is intolerant. But in this case I think the argument is sound. This like was clearly endorsement. And the act was inexcusable no matter how offended anyone can be in their religion.

[young_unixer]

Leftists see conservatives as intolerant, conservatives see leftists as intolerant.

The whole point of political discussions is pointing out the intolerances of your opponents without using physical violence.

I think that 99% of people are intolerant. The 1% being, of course, those that agree with me on everything.

[svara]

No, that's a misreading of the Popper quote.

Intolerance refers specifically to those people who fight for their views with means outside of civil discourse, i.e. violence and intimidation (1), thus destroying the possibility of civil discourse.

Deciding who these people are really isn't a hard problem in practice; a democratic society would have no problem with it.

(1) Yes, intimidation can be "just words".

[hirundo]

I've never met anybody who agreed with me on everything, including me yesterday. Obviously all of those past mes that disagree with now me were intolerant asshats.

[chroem-]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to intimidate or suppress political opponents. With that in mind, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is simply an ideological framework for justifying terrorism. You can respond to violence with violence, but responding to words with violence is a game-breaking attack on the foundations of a civil society. We exist as a society because we have a shared expectation that others won't respond to our words with violence.

[pmoriarty]

"Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to intimidate or suppress political opponents."

Is it really? Then I suppose war is terrorism, and the military is a terrorist organization.

If you respond that the definition only applies to non-state actors, I have to ask: why does the state get a free pass to do the same thing? Not legally or practically, but ethically. Why?

[chroem-]

The war on terrorism was a response to violence, not words. Please re-read my post.

[rbecker]

In practice, all that accomplishes is everyone tries to cast their opponents as "intolerant" so they may be censored. And "intolerant" is such a broad term, it can be applied to nearly everything, and abuse is guaranteed.

Accusing a whole group of racism and guilt based on skin color? Intolerant.

Want to close the borders? That's intolerant of those who want to enter.

Drawing disrespectful cartoons you know will cause backlash and division? Intolerant.

Boycotting a country or business because they endorse said cartoons? Also intolerant.

[chromatin]

> suppress them ... by force

The trouble is deciding who gets to wield that force

[jdoliner]

The first question in any political movement is always the same: Who, whom?

I.e. who's wielding power and over whom are they wielding it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who,_whom%3F

[hartator]

> The trouble is deciding who gets to wield that force

Whoever is wielding the force is the one gets to wield it. We can have a more civilized society by strictly limiting the wield the force by limiting opportunity to weild it by clear defined individual rights.

[fergbrain]

By definition it’s the state (whomever the state allows), since they have a monopoly on force.

[robotresearcher]

Which means as ever it's super important to maintain and preferably improve democratic processes to keep the state accountable for that terrible responsibility.

Also, vote!

[mulmen]

The "who" is pretty easy, it's the state. Who they wield it on and to what extent is the open question.

[hartator]

You can be intolerant as an individual according to your own ethics and morals but the state should not be.

[colechristensen]

I, for one, am not particularly troubled by someone being punished for celebrating a fundamentalist murdering a teacher.

We’re going to have to be doing more of this.

Either we have to treat socially undeveloped nations like a star trek, noninterferance and isolation until some bar is passed, or we have to police opinions. You can’t have peace and a considerable population that does not support some of the basic values of your society. If change doesn’t come this sort of thing is going to keep happening until the people fear it enough to start turning it into state sponsored ethnic violence.

It is a much more difficult solution than being blindly tolerant or blindly racist, you have to walk a very fine line of being specifically intolerant of certain ideas, expressions, and actions.

[fatbird]

Think of tolerance not as a virtue or an obligation, but as a peace treaty. The limits of tolerance become pretty clear then.