Intolerance and discrimination seems to be all over the news lately. Two examples that readily come to mind are the LambdaConf fiasco and North Carolina’s LGBT discrimation law. One question that often comes up when talking about discrimination is: how much should we tolerate intolerance? For example, is it acceptable to ban people with known discriminatory views and actions from gatherings, irrespective of their other qualifications? Is it morally acceptable (or maybe even mandatory) to boycott gatherings and events and places that invite such people?
In that context, I wanted to share the following interesting excerpt from Karl Popper’s, “The Open Society and Its Enemies”, posted by one of my former coworkers. I wouldn’t say it answers once and for all questions of fighting intolerance, but it is a solid foundation from which to consider and answer such questions.
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. This idea is, in a slightly different form, and with a different tendency, clearly expressed by Plato.
Less well known 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 should 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 rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of 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.