Tolerance vs. Intolerance

Just a short rant concerning a rhetorical tack I've seen recently; please forgive the necessary overuse of the terms "tolerant" and "intolerant".

Here's the most recent example I've found of this kind of tactic. Cynthia McKinney writes in the Atlanta Journal Constitution regarding Zell Miller's recent conversion to the pro-Bush lockstep parade. America, she argues, has always distinguished itself, and thereby flourished, by not only allowing, but even encouraging dissent. The column, posted on Yahoo! news, has of course received many posted responses, among them one which argues that McKinney is a hypocrite for condemning Miller's opinion.

People who argue like this are engaging in sophistry. Tolerant people realize the value of a variety of opinions, and desire that all opinions be expressable and expressed. Intolerant people demand an orthodoxy by all involved in the discussion to views similar to their own. But tolerant people find only one thing intolerable: namely, intolerance itself. Hypocrisy! cry the intolerant, They refuse to tolerate our point of view!

Look, it boils down to this. Tolerance demands open, free dialogue, not orthodoxy. Intolerance demands unerring devotion to the hard line. Being opposites, each position naturally despises the other, knowing that the principles for which the other stands are antithetical and poison to their own. It is not hypocrisy for tolerant people to say that intolerant people are intolerable in a pluralistic society that demands a free flow of divergent, and even irreconcileable ideas.

Intolerant people can't continue to have it both ways, where the intolerant can be intolerant of tolerance, but where the tolerant have to tolerate intolerance. Disagreement and criticism are crucial to discourse, and do not represent intolerance of any kind. Intolerance is a cancer on democracy which, if allowed to grow, ultimately consumes and kills it. Choose liberty, be tolerant, and in so doing, never hesitate to be intolerant of intolerance.

j/k, nice post.

I think the freeps would probably nail you on this: that your definition of 'tolerance' is not based in anything particularly Democratic, and that they could make the same argument against you. They would say that you are the one that is not allowing their 'dissent'. It gets circular very, very fast. And in truth, tolerance boils down to how long you're willing to sit and listen to someone else spout (unless you happen to be a dictator). Which is not very significant by any standard.

Democracy is founded on the principle of a marketplace of ideas. For such a forum of open exchange to exist, all ideas must tolerate all other ideas. Intolerance of heterodoxy leads to inquisitions or purges, a decidedly undemocratic process.

dont be so tollerant that your tollerant of intollerance

Bush has managed to merge capitalism with Stalinist intimidation. There's a word for that... fascism.

my last post was a post 9/11 bill mahr quote