Paradox of Tolerance
Per Wikipedia, the paradox of tolerance is stated as such:
If a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them, and thus, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
There have been attempts to resolve this paradox, but they usually overthink and over-complicate it. There is a much simpler solution.
Tolerance doesn’t exist in a vacuum, people don’t tolerate things just for the sake of tolerating them. The purpose of tolerance is to prevent, reduce, and minimize harm.
For example, instead of fighting with a neighbor who is making noise during a birthday party, you tolerate it until it’s over or close your windows. Instead of seething and stressing that someone else got the job you wanted, you tolerate and accept the fact that you can’t always come out on top. And so on.
Tolerating intolerance however, INCREASES harm. Tolerating a bully allows them to continue to bully their victim for being different. Tolerating a domestic- or animal-abuser, allows them to continue doing harm. And of course, this applies to lesser and greater forms of harm.
Not tolerating intolerance accomplishes the true, underlying, ultimate goal of tolerance of preventing and reducing harm.
Tolerating intolerance allows the intolerance to continue indefinitely. Not tolerating intolerance is a temporary action to put a stop to the intolerance, so ultimately, not tolerating intolerance results in LESS intolerance overall.
Good vs. Evil
There are two ultimate universal truths:
- Evil will triumph over good (contrary to popular belief) because evil is willing to do whatever it takes to get what it wants. Good is soft and worthless like Superman and Batman who waste countless tax-dollars to put irredeemable harmful dangerous criminals in prison for the rest of their lives, whereas Frank “The Punisher” Castle does what he has to do to remove the harmful threats. The Punisher doesn’t run around looking for people to hurt for fun or profit, he only takes out ones that choose to cause harm. The Punisher doesn’t tolerate intolerance.
- Any individual specific evil will never last. There is no honor amongst thieves, evil is, by definition, selfish and greedy. It will always stab each other in the back and eat itself. It will usurp and kill and replace itself. While evil will always win out over good overall, individual instances of it will eventually be taken out by some other evil at some point. (No, it’s not guaranteed that it will always get worse and worse, sometimes a lesser evil will replace a greater one.
Tolerance is BAD
I don’t actually believe in tolerance at all. I don’t believe in tolerating anything or anyone. It doesn’t make sense. What does it even mean to “tolerate” something or someone? By definition, it means to “accept and endure pain or hardship”. That’s absurd, why would you accept and endure pain and hardship (other than to be a masochist)? Moreover, when people talk about tolerance, they talk about it in the context of accepting people different from oneself. That implies that the people who are different are painful and inflict hardship, that they are negative and bad. That’s offensive… and pointless.
There are two types of people for whom “tolerance” might be applied:
- One type of person is someone who is merely different from oneself but otherwise harmless, their differences do not affect you and don’t cause problems or harm, they are simply different. In that case, there’s no reason to TOLERATE them, you simply either ACCEPT them, or just mind your own damn business and leave them be. There is no need to tolerate them, just let them live their lives as you’d have people let you live your life. People forget to turn the tables and think about how the other person would have to “tolerate” YOU being different from them.
- The other type is someone who is actually HARMFUL. Someone who inflicts damage and pain and creates strife and adversity in the world. In that case, tolerating them is absurd too. Why would you accept a harmful element? Would you tolerate a tumor? No, you cut it out to stop it from causing harm. Dangerous people should NOT be tolerated. Threats should be neutralized.
Either something or someone isn’t harmful, in which case, you DON’T NEED to tolerate it, or it is harmful, in which case, WHY would you tolerate it? Would you tolerate a tumor that’s killing you or would you cut it the hell out?
There is no need for tolerance, it doesn’t make sense. Acceptance (or, at least, ignoring), yes; tolerance, no.