The page you link states later:

> In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."

> In a 1997 work, Michael Walzer asked "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".

> Thomas Jefferson addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech, concerning those who might destabilise the country and its unity, saying, "...let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

I believe we should tolerate the intolerant, for we may get them to change their minds. If we push them away, they won't get any closer to tolerance.

I agree that forgiveness is powerful. I also linked to that page because it shows a balanced view intentionally.

It is easier for one to be forgiving when the problem is abstract and one's life is not directly threatened by the intolerance (please forgive the unwieldy "one"'s, I don't want to make any assumptions about "you"). I have a lot of respect for people who are able to hold forgiveness in their hearts, I also understand the value of the self preservation in drawing a firm boundary in saying "I will not be attacked". It's complicated.

One's life is not directly threatened by intolerance when it comes strictly to speech. It is only action taken upon that speech (or imminent action caused by it) that threatens lives.

And preventing the restriction of ideas such that "augmenting intelligence" or "radical life extension" are not suddenly unspeakable is very much unlike being intolerant of others anyway.

Self-preservation is important, but it's also important for people to avoid being drunk on their own self-righteousness.

Anil's argument was that tolerating hatred of groups emboldens those who would be violent against those groups. In that, I agree violent speech threatens the lives of those who it is is violent against.

There also degrees to this. There are certainly instances of people being drunk on their own self righteousness.

- If I were a non-christian and you were to wish me "Merry Christmas", if I took the interpretation that you were threatening my life that would be unreasonable.

- If you were to announce "I'm not killing anybody, but I pray that all the gays are killed" I think my understanding of that as endangering my life (as a gay person) is totally reasonable.

This is a nuanced conversation, it helps to remember that different people have different things at stake, and it's difficult to say things that apply to every level.

Organized violence begins with the organization, and why most countries in the modern world have some provision to prevent inciting violence, riot, etc.

You're falsely presenting that as the only solution to the philosophical problem.

In fact, when it comes to government regulation of speech, the philosophical approach taken by the First Amendment, and the very thoughtful jurists who have interpreted it, is the opposite: that we must tolerate intolerance.

And as for the social sphere, where legal freedom of speech does not apply of course, the problem with too liberally being intolerant of "intolerance" is that the definition of "intolerance" is itself a political thing, inevitably expanded and wielded as a weapon against dissent. For example, opposition to more immigration becomes branded as inherently intolerant.

I certainly err on the side of agreeing with the thesis that we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, which is Anil's point as well, that said the source material I linked to (wikipedia), gives attention to both the argument and its counterpoints. I do find it interesting and relevant to this conversation that we have both been downvoted for our points.

There is a depraved desire in all of us to use our momentary power to achieve final victory. The right tried with McCarthyism half a century ago when it had cultural dominance, and the left is currently trying now that it has achieved cultural dominance.

Our political order can do a lot to stymie such attempts, but it cannot replace the need for personal virtue. No constitution can save a people from itself.

If the left has achieved cultural dominance, why has it not achieved political dominance? I think that divide speaks to the argument that bigotry is dangerous and powerful. I agree that there can certainly be a chilling from leftist critiques but don't see that it as equaling McCarthyism.

Cultural dominance, in the form of media, entertainment, social media stardom etc is controlled by a relatively small group of gatekeepers who exercise a tight grip on their respective Overton windows.

Cultural grassroots swells of a certain flavor on Twitter and YouTube in particular were quickly handicapped when they started to go viral. I think the cultural/political discrepancy reflects this.

Upon further reading I find myself chuckling and agreeing with your thesis statement: "There is a depraved desire in all of us to use our momentary power to achieve final victory."

tl;dr: The choices made in these examples are political, but the words communicating them are not always so flexible.

the problem with too liberally being intolerant of "intolerance" is that the definition of "intolerance" is itself a political thing

It can be, but it can also be an attribute of the text. The fact that "Jews should be eradicated" advocates an intolerance of the very existence of Jews isn't a political interpretation because it's right there in the text. The advocacy, the desire to utter the sentiment, is political for sure, but the words that express those politics leave no room for interpretation.

If "too liberally" was meant to communicate this, it's kind of doing a lot of work for its mention in passing.

For example, opposition to more immigration becomes branded as inherently intolerant.

Is this an actual thing? Most of what I see is about a reduction in current immigration, including the deportation of people who have already been here for decades, which is indeed a kind of intolerance for the status quo of border policy. If there's a more charitable interpretation of this state of affairs I'm all ears/eyes.

So when are things too intolerant to tolerate? And what other behaviors would you call "tolerant" besides those that tolerate intolerance? Thats the only time you're really being tolerant of somerthing that requires an effort to tolerate.

Two more essays on this topic are "Repressive Tolerance" by Herbert Marcuse (http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetole...) and John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" (http://www.bartleby.com/130/).