Is it paradoxical to be intolerant of intolerance?

Question

I think it is not paradoxical, as long as you state what type of intolerance you are not tolerating. For example, I am intolerant of religious intolerance, and racial intolerance. But I am not intolerant of intolerance of those things. I am tolerant of intolerance of evil and terrorism.

So, there are different types of intolerance and tolerance. And when I say I'm intolerant of racial and religious intolerance, that is just one type of intolerance, not all types.

Get it?

Answer 1

Great question, and I agree, its not. For example, I dont believe in Allah but the Quran says to “fight (jihad) those who believe not in allah”. Quran 9:29.http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/msa/quran/009.qmt.html

I have no tolerance or ability to accept, at all, any religion which with such text...even if one or two of its followers arent literalists.

Answer 2

Yes...everyone is not automatically granted tolerance and allowed to do whatever they want. If they are doing harm to others, of course this should not be tolerated. However, if they are not hurting anyone it is wrong to be intolerant toward them. In the end tolerance does not make you a moral person but knowing the difference between what to tolerate and what not to does. Labels are always paradoxical because everything is relative. Nothing is really definite.

I've only had 2 hrs of sleep so I'm sorry if that kind of made no sense :D

Answer 3

Paradox...
1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases.

I would have to say that being intolerant of intolerance can be very paradoxical, but I do not see that as a bad thing.

Intolerance;
is the lack of ability or willingness to tolerate something. I see nothing wrong with not tolerating actions that are intolerant, but I feel that you, perhaps, may not be intolerant as much as you realize the stupidity of some of these actions. Frequently, when we refer to ourselves as being intolerant of others actions, we are really stating that we feel these actions make no sense, as an example, and that we would never consider acting this way. It is all semantics.
Myself, I prefer saying that I do not understand why individuals and groups can be as intolerant as some are; terrorists, as an example,because understanding can lead to being able to help them deal with how they use the semantics of language in their personal and group conversations.

Answer 4

No, not necessarily. A person can be intolerant and to point this out is simply to state a fact. However, in practice you will find that people who use the term a lot are often the ones intolerant of any opposing viewpoints and opinions. For example, theer are people who believe that some people shouldn't have the right to free speech because they are considered "intolerant". This, of course, would be intolerant itself because it is to deny a right to certain people on the grounds you disagree with their views. It is also grossly hypocritical, if such a person is supposedly an advocate of tolerance.

Answer 5

Well, actually, and don't worry this is something I struggle with daily (I despise intolerance...), it's hypocritical in a way. You see, technically you're asking others to measure up to your standards, which isn't fair considering they may not know your standards, and really to be tolerant, you need to be tolerant of the whole package, even if they exhibit intolerance.
So, basically I'm saying it's hypocritical, but I'm calling myself the same in doing so... does that make sense?

Answer 6

Unfortunately, we need to be intolerant of certain things. Harming others is not to be tolerated, for example. But if you think of tolerance as the application of The Golden Rule then it becomes much easier and much more clear.

Answer 7

It is paradoxical, but we must deal with our own hypocisies in order to make our world better. Somethings cannot be, we cannot be completely free, we must be bound by some laws in order to guarantee our freedom as a whole. We must be intolerant of certain things to guarantee tolerance of our fellow man in general.

Answer 8

But you said you are 'not intolerant of those things'. So, although I came here to tell you you can have intolerance for intolerance, I don't think you know what you're asking.

.

Answer 9

there is ultimate truth, we are all intolerant of something, let it be that the rest of the people were intolerant of intolerance and we would have a beautiful world.

the issue swings on moral imperative, the converse of that which you view as moral will often be something that is hard to tolerate.

Answer 10

I am intolerant of intolerant people, most especially those who are not intolerant when I say they should be tolerant or when they are intolerant.

Don't you agree...

Answer 11

I'm intolerant of things that are immoral, so any kind of intolerance that is immoral is necessarily something that does not deserve tolerance.