To Show Tolerance, You Must First Disagree
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
A Word without Meaning
One of the most abused words in the English language is the word “tolerance.” We seem to have forgotten that it’s impossible to be tolerant of things you support.
Webster’s defines tolerance as:
capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
In this section, I’m not going to be arguing for or against tolerance per se: I’m arguing against semantic drift. If we’re going to keep using this word, we need to know what it means.
By definition, tolerance implies disagreement — so you cannot be “tolerant” of someone with whom you agree. Tolerance means that despite different opinions and different beliefs, we “tolerate” each other anyway.
For example, people who support [insert hot button cultural issue here] are not “tolerant” toward that idea. They do not disagree, so there’s simply no opportunity for them to be “tolerant” in the first place.
Meanwhile, a group that shouts down a speaker who’s known for criticizing [same hot button issue] is being intolerant — and suggesting by example that intolerance should be normalized.
Tolerance also implies something that costs you. We “tolerate” pain, not pleasure. If you want to know how tolerant you actually are, observe how you react when you disagree so strongly that it hurts.
For example, a religion that strongly condemns something verbally but does not advocate negative action against those engaging in that thing is acting in accord with the true definition of tolerance: enduring an idea that’s psychologically painful without striking back.
Conversely, a religion that puts those who disagree to death or in prison would be considered intolerant.
These days, simple disagreement or disapproval is often branded as ‘intolerance.’ This is a brazen misuse of the word — and it seems to function as a label intended to silence.
“You can’t host that speaker!” some scream, “I disagree with his views and he’s intolerant!” The irony is unmistakable.
Some who claim they’re defending “tolerance” are extremely intolerant.
What such groups seem to want is not a culture of “tolerance,” but a culture of uniformity. Under uniformity, everyone marches to the same drum and everyone supports the same things.
But humans will always disagree (often strongly), which means cultural uniformity can only be achieved by exercising severe intolerance. You will ultimately have to force everyone to agree with you through authoritarian measures — because there is no such thing as “peacefully forcing” someone to believe or act against their will.
This is, in fact, why the West elevated tolerance as a virtue in the first place. Tolerance is one of the backbones of a free, liberal democracy.
The Paradox of Tolerance
Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" appears in a footnote in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). Popper warned that unlimited tolerance could destroy tolerance itself: a society that tolerates movements bent on abolishing tolerance may be voting for its own demise.
But here's the crucial nuance that often gets overlooked: Popper was not advocating for immediately suppressing all intolerant ideas. He actually says:
"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 would certainly be most unwise."
He only advocates suppression when intolerant groups:
Refuse rational debate
Teach followers to answer arguments with "fists or pistols"
Begin inciting violence
And we might ask if there are any groups doing that today.
But the point is, Popper's position is more subtle than it's often portrayed. He's saying we should reserve the right to be intolerant of intolerance when it threatens the foundations of open society, but we should first try to counter bad ideas with better arguments. Only when intolerant movements reject reason itself and turn to force should they be suppressed.
Conclusion
I’m not advocating for “absolute tolerance of anything and everything.” I’m simply pointing out that we have confused this word into oblivion.
So, remember this simple rule: One cannot be tolerant without disagreement.
The stronger the disagreement, the more tolerance is required.
Thus: You cannot “end intolerance” by being intolerant toward those who disagree — because then you are multiplying the very thing you claim to fight.
And you are demonstrating the world you think you want to live in.
To break this cycle, we have to try to view the world from the 10,000 foot level and ask: are my actions adding to the “total intolerance of the world”? To answer honestly, you must set aside judgments of who’s “right” or “wrong.” Because that is a separate question.
And of course you believe you’re right and your opponent is wrong. Every group throughout history, no matter how wrong they are, always believes itself to be right. Including your group. And mine (if I have one besides myself, anyway).
In the end, no group, no creed, no ideology can claim infallibility. Which is why the root of tolerance is humility: always allowing for the possibility, however remote, that you're wrong. Without that humility, tolerance collapses — either into forced uniformity or relativistic chaos.
But in the final analysis, we can’t continue to be a “tolerant” society if we don’t even know what that means.