The Tolerance Paradox

Should we tolerate intolerance?

Nearly every mainstream religion or moral code has some version of the idea that we should be good to our fellow humans. Christianity’s Golden Rule states, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” while Sikhism states, “I am a stranger to no one, and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.” While the exact wording and language vary across time and culture, this near-universal rule advocates the importance of tolerance and acceptance.

We can get into an endless debate about precisely what acceptance is, but for this article, the concept is relatively simple. Acceptance is recognizing the right of others to engage in conduct you have no objection to. I’m not going to complain about my neighbor for having a well-maintained yard and a steady job. I have absolutely no reason to object to either of those things.

Tolerance is a little trickier. It is recognizing the right of people to engage in conduct you find objectionable on some level. Sometimes, it is easy. I have many friends who hold radically different political views from mine. But other times it’s harder. Should you tolerate an upstairs neighbor who makes an incredible amount of noise? I just told you that you should tolerate other political opinions, but where does that end? Should you tolerate someone voting Republican or Democrat? What if they hold a more extreme position like MAGA, communism, or fascism? Should you tolerate those who refuse to accept you?

Here is where we find something called the tolerance paradox. It is pretty simple. If you refuse to accept the right of others to be intolerant, you create the same thing you hate. By American standards, Dutch culture has an incredibly permissive stance on nudity and sex. The Dutch government wishes to preserve its culture in an era of mass immigration. As a result, they have forced immigrants from Middle Eastern countries to watch a film depicting nudity and homosexual couples.

This has caused quite a bit of cultural friction, as this method of protecting Dutch culture interferes with Muslim’s rights to live as they please. Muslims have responded by petitioning to remove nudity from public spaces, which creates the exact problem the Dutch government was attempting to avoid in the first place. Unless you’re extremely careful, forcing others to tolerate one another can create the very intolerance you oppose.

But tolerating those who refuse to accept you has the exact same problem. I’m not going to claim every MAGA voter is intolerant, but I will claim the leadership is. The Trump administration’s use of ICE to target ethnic individuals for deportation while prioritizing white South Africans due to cultural compatibility is a blatantly obvious example. No matter how charitably you examine these policies, they are intolerant.

For four years, the Biden administration tolerated MAGA under the assumption that a return to normal would kill the movement. They were wrong. In the 2024 Presidential election, MAGA returned stronger and more intolerant than ever. In addition to people, the Trump administration now despises ideas and objects like DEI and renewable energy. Tolerating intolerance allows it to grow unopposed.

This does not appear to be an easy problem to solve. People don’t usually change without a good reason to, and our natural human dislike of being wrong makes it extremely difficult to force others to change. I don’t think it’s that complicated, though. We simply need to do something differently.

I’m going to start by saying that the following does not apply to Republican or Democratic leadership. The leadership of both parties is equally guilty of enriching themselves and prioritizing their own interests over the needs of the working class, while also attempting to dehumanize their political opponents. This is a deliberate attempt to keep us divided and angry at one another instead of at them.

Most working-class voters are not bad people, regardless of which way they voted. Instead of criticizing and dehumanizing people we disagree with, you can prove your ideas are better in ways that uplift everyone. If you’re a small-government conservative, don’t vote to cut social programs that people depend on. Instead, show me that your community can take care of its needy without government help. If you’re a leftist, don’t just sit there and tweet angrily. Do something tangible to improve the lives of the people you claim to care about.

Our political situation will continue to deteriorate until someone decides to be the bigger person and help their fellow humans instead of hating people who think differently. In the words of Representative Amaad Rivera-Wagner, “You don’t need a label to help people.” It doesn’t matter if you help people because of conservative or leftist ideals, it still makes the world a better place. When someone is working to improve the lives of everyone instead of helping some while harming others, who are we to judge their reasons?

The featured image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Find the creator here.