Karl Popper and the Paradox of Tolerance
This was posted yesterday then disappeared, so here it is again.
Over the past decade I’ve often been reminded of an article I wrote about this time of year at the beginning of the Bush Administration’s second term. It was posted on my old blog and received minimal debate. This is an adaptation of that blog.
Back in the 1940s, philosopher Karl Popper introduced what he called the "Paradox of Tolerance," arguing that a tolerant society can’t just be open to everything without limits. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper said: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” Popper’s point was that, to keep tolerance alive, society has to draw the line somewhere when it comes to intolerance.
The paradox is simple but deep: if we let intolerant ideas spread without limits, those ideas will eventually take over and destroy the very thing we’re trying to protect—tolerance. It’s a question at the heart of freedom and democracy: Can tolerance survive if it has to tolerate intolerance?
So here’s the paradox: Can we push for love and tolerance without accidentally creating new divides? Can tolerance really thrive in a world where intolerance insists on being accepted? For those of us who once thought it was possible, the world seems to be showing us otherwise.
This tension plays out every day on social media. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter (or whatever we’re calling it these days) claim to support open discussion but have to regulate harmful content. This often leads to backlash from users who argue that taking down content to prevent harm limits free speech. These platforms face a challenge that seems impossible for some rich conservatives—finding the right balance between allowing free speech and maintaining a space that’s respectful and safe, all without letting their political views get in the way.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, stressed how important free speech is but also warned about the “tyranny of the majority”—where society forces everyone to conform, which can take away individual freedoms. This issue ties directly to the Paradox of Tolerance, since both too much control and too little can undermine freedom in different ways.
Take yard signs, for example, like the ones that say “Hate Has No Home Here.” At first glance, these signs seem like a clear stance against hate. But some people criticize them, saying they’re judgmental and may push away neighbors with different beliefs. Karen Pansler Lam, one such critic, argues that these signs judge those with more conservative views and are not as welcoming as they appear. This response highlights the paradox: even messages meant to promote love and tolerance can be seen as exclusionary or intolerant by some. And Lam’s not the only one. One homeowner received a hateful message after putting up one of these signs.
Ironic, isn’t it? An anti-hate message sparking hostility.
Friedrich Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, said, “He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.” In the context of intolerance, Nietzsche’s warning is clear: fighting hate shouldn’t turn us into the thing we’re fighting. Popper would argue, though, that doing nothing in the face of hate could allow those harmful ideas to take hold, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing today.
The paradox also shows up in places like schools and workplaces. Schools, for example, have anti-bullying rules that let everyone in but don’t tolerate harassment. They recognize that tolerance has to have limits sometimes to protect students. In workplaces, behavior that makes the environment unsafe can get someone fired, sending a clear message that some actions and ideas go beyond what we can tolerate for the sake of mutual respect and safety. Even peaceful protests are a form of free expression, but when protests turn violent, it brings up the question: should we allow that in the name of free speech, or does tolerance require setting boundaries?
The Paradox of Tolerance is alive and well in political conversations, too. As Popper warned, tolerating intolerant ideologies can destroy tolerance. Today, extreme political ideas—whether from the far right or far left—make it hard to have open conversations. Right-wing extremism often fights against things like equality and diversity, while left-wing extremism rejects nationalism and tradition. As the political center shifts over time, things that once seemed extreme are now more mainstream. Over the years, there’s been a tug-of-war over what’s considered “the center”—first one side drags it in their direction, then the other side pulls it the other way. Right now, the center has shifted far right. Over the past few decades, society has had to accept that some of what was once seen as right-wing extremism is now part of the political mainstream.
Antifa, the loosely organized group that opposes racism and fascism, is a modern example that comes up in discussions about the Paradox of Tolerance. Antifa fights intolerance, but sometimes their tactics are confrontational. Supporters argue their actions are necessary to keep society tolerant, while critics wonder if they’re crossing the line into intolerance themselves, raising the question of where to draw the line.
As George Orwell famously wrote in Animal Farm, “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” Orwell perfectly captured how the line between fighting something and becoming like it can get blurry.
Many countries deal with this paradox through hate speech laws. In Canada, strict laws limit speech that could incite violence, while the U.S. has broader free speech protections but only restricts speech that causes “imminent lawless action.” The difference between these approaches shows how societies balance the need for free speech with the need to protect people from harm.
In our digital age, the paradox is also shaping policies on cyberbullying in schools and codes of conduct in workplaces, expanding the idea of tolerance to online spaces. While these measures protect people, they also raise concerns about how much responsibility we can place on individuals and institutions to monitor online behavior. Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, argued that freedom comes with responsibility. In today’s connected world, that idea is being tested more than ever.
Ultimately, the Paradox of Tolerance forces us to ask what kind of world we want to live in. Do we want total freedom, or do we need rules to keep things safe and respectful? Popper believed that being “too tolerant” could lead to everyone losing their freedom. To prevent intolerance from taking over without becoming intolerant ourselves, we need to figure out where to draw the line. The real challenge is to stand up against hate without becoming part of it.
As Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels chillingly observed, “This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed.” His words remind us that democracy’s strength is in its protections, but those protections need to be defended if tolerance is going to survive. Drawing the line between tolerance and protection isn’t always easy, but as Popper warned, being “too tolerant” could eventually mean less freedom for everyone.
So here we are. Should democratic societies let intolerant, anti-democratic ideas stick around, even if they technically fall under the protection of tolerance? Societies change, and every generation has to decide where to draw the line, balancing openness with the courage to protect it. In a world where hate can be so loud, finding true tolerance may mean standing firm against those who want to shut it down, even if it challenges our most deeply held beliefs.
On November 5, 2024, it became our time to choose. What happened Tuesday is now in the history books. It is up to us to write the next chapter, or have it written for us.