The Paradox of Tolerance

 In a note on chapter 7 of his 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper wrote the following.

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

This is somthing I've been returning to in recent months, as was something from the study of philosopy as part of my Economics degree, it was a little aside I went down in he age before Wikipedia and the rest.

But it is something that is becoming very real again to. Popper wrote this just as Facism was facing defeat. Now we have a new idealogy that seems to want to forbid their followers from listening to rational argument. Whether that in the form of the Brexiteers calling all arguments "Project Fear", Trump supporters denying the result of the 2020 election and the Gender Critical brigade who want everyone to conform to a binary definition of gender defined at birth.

All three of the above movements show an intolerance to other views. There were times during the Brexit debate some people said I did not know what I was talking about, despite having an Economics degree and taking options in European Economics in both by second and third year. As well as writing my dissertaion on the effect on European Economics with the then possible expansion of the EU.

The same applies now whenever I stand up for Trans rights I have people jump on who call me a mysogynist, homophobic and/or a paedophile. The latter is especially true when I say that people under the age of 18 can realise their sexual indentity and gender and need support in that. Apparently yet again lived experience that this is true is not enough for some, now is having studied medical sources. 

So do we live is an age that is post rational argument?

When I was studying economiccs at University one of my tutors told us read the news from three sources every day. One paper from the view you agree with, one from the opposite opinion and also if you can find it a neutral point of view. This daily exercise of going into the library to look at how other papers expressed the same news was eye opening. It also made me more aware to look to the source material where possible. Sadly today too many people only get their news, their opinions and their talking points from those who share their beliefs. It is too easy to only wallow in the views you have.

However, if that leads to intolerance, don't argue that we must tolerate your intolerance. We will provide reasoned argument that you are wrong, but if you block us, say to your follows we are deceptive, use bullying tactics to try and silence us, we will stand up to your intolerance. We will call it out. We do not have to tolerate intolerance to be liberal and tolerant.