Is it Hypocritical to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

I'd say the majority of people support the idea of being tolerant of activities that they may personally find immoral or distasteful, but which don't really harm others.

Is it hypocritical when such people are intolerant of people/views that go against that principle?

Krhazy said:

I'd say the majority of people support the idea in tolerance of activities that they may personally find immoral or distasteful, but which don't really harm others.

Is it hypocritical of such people to be intolerant of people/views that go against that principle?

Click to expand...

I would disagree pointing to blue laws, SSM/polygamy bans, prostitution bans and recreational drug use/posession bans as a prime examples. While potential and indirect (moral/religious outrage, lower inhibitions, supporting criminal distribution networks and monitary loss) harm MAY result from these acts, none the less, these acts IN AND OF THEMSELVES have no direct victims.

Krhazy said:

I'd say the majority of people support the idea of being tolerant of activities that they may personally find immoral or distasteful, but which don't really harm others.

Is it hypocritical when such people are intolerant of people/views that go against that principle?

Click to expand...

No....once it is established said views will harm others.

It's one thing to think it....but another to act on it.

It depends on the boundaries of tolerance and intolerance that a person has for themselves. If an individual claims to tolerant of everything, then it is hypocritical for them to be intolerant of anything. However, if an individual claims to be tolerant only of X and they are intolerant of Y, then they are not being hypocritical because they never claimed that they were tolerant of Y. In sum, it's only hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance if one previously claimed that they were tolerant of intolerance. Otherwise, it's not.

If the intolerance is infringing on the rights of others or discriminating against others, than it is not hypocritical to be intolerant of that intolerance, in my opinion.

i don't think it's hypocritical. one is still entitled to believe what he or she wants. however, one is not entitled to use those beliefs to deny rights to others.

Krhazy said:

I'd say the majority of people support the idea of being tolerant of activities that they may personally find immoral or distasteful, but which don't really harm others.

Is it hypocritical when such people are intolerant of people/views that go against that principle?

Click to expand...

Assuming 'intolerance' includes active opposition, there is an exception. The appeal of tolerance as a behavior hinges around its power to facilitate peace between groups who would otherwise oppose each other, to the detriment of the 'common good'. People who oppose the ideal of tolerance, both in principle and in practice, are not subject to its protections.

Its a matter of degrees, though. I don't consider actively opposing something in the private sector to necessarily merit retaliation by means of the state.

Krhazy said:

I'd say the majority of people support the idea of being tolerant of activities that they may personally find immoral or distasteful, but which don't really harm others.

Is it hypocritical when such people are intolerant of people/views that go against that principle?

Click to expand...

Only if someone's stance about intolerance is that one should never be intolerant of anything. If that's their stance, then yes. OR if the reason they're intolerant of someone is specifically JUST because that someone is intolerant, and not because of the specific TYPE of intolerance that person has. That'd be yes as well. Otherwise no.

So if you're intollerant of say, an extreme fundamentalist Christian or Muslim, because they treat homosexuals poorly and aren't in favor of same sex marriage, then you're not hypocritical. If you're intollerant of those same individuals though because "they're intollerant bigots"...well then yeah, you're a hypocrite, because apparently your issue is that they're intollerant in general, not due to a specific bit of intollerance.

Intolerance is not in and of itself a negative thing. Can it be? Absolutely. But that's not some kind of inherent principle of it.

Now, that said...many people seem to be misguided with what intolerance is. Disliking something, being annoyed by something, not agreeing with something, not taking action to specifically help something happen....all of those can be done without being "intollerant" of that something.

It's not hypocrisy, it's idiocy. The idiots are just repeating what the talking heads say, like the brainwashed robots they are.

I see the potential for a loop here. For example, would it be hypocritical to be intolerant of hypocrisy but be tolerant of intolerance?

Speaking out of intolerant acts is not hypocritical in my opinion, because in the end game they are fighting for tolerance.

Sure it can be. That's why it's largely only useful in a larger context, to describe imprecise things.

If you write down examples of tolerance and intolerance, you'll find that the most common (and correct) ethical times to "tolerate", revolve around individual freedom (surprise, surprise) and selfishness. The two cornerstones of reasoned thought..no surprise there, we already discovered the wheel.

We tolerate in public because it maximzies our benefits in most cases.
We are intolerant of things that serve to reduce our freedoms or the freedoms of others. A religion that is intolerant of pink at their services, we don't go crazy about, but if they are intolerant of women working, we think its outrageous (womens individual freedom was the issue).

In every case, people exhibit both tolerance and intolerance of a variety of things. Strictly, they are all hypocrites on some things as well.
Let's just give a small kudos to Christian teachings here, they accidentally get some things correct on occasion. They recognize we're all sinners, so the notion of running around preaching against sinners, is hypocritical and absurd.

This is all just red herring though, there are a lot more important things to discuss such as what, is being tolerated or not tolerated.

Krhazy said:

I'd say the majority of people support the idea of being tolerant of activities that they may personally find immoral or distasteful, but which don't really harm others.

Is it hypocritical when such people are intolerant of people/views that go against that principle?

Click to expand...

I'd say don't call yourself a "tolerant person," because you'd be a major hypocrite. Just accept that you [general] are tolerant on some issues, and intolerant on others.