ID: A scene from Legally Blonde of a conversation between Warner and Elle in the corridor at Harvard, in 4 panels:

  1. Warner asks “What happened to the tolerant left?”

  2. Elle replies, smiling “Who said we were tolerant?”

  3. Warner continues “I thought you were supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs!”

  4. Elle looks confused “Why would we tolerate bigotry, inequity, or oppression?”

  • @lmmarsanoEnglish
    2•4 hours ago

    That clears it up, and I missed it earlier: we appear to have a merely verbal dispute over the word tolerance.

    You mentioned speaking out against the objectionable (an act lacking force) as an instance of not tolerating it. This is not the notion of tolerance defined in the wikipedia article or SEP article that discussions of the paradox go by. Tolerance is permitting ideas, action, practices one considers wrong yet not worthy of prohibition or constraint. Typical formulations of the concept consist of 3 components:

    1. objection component, the object considered wrong or bad
    2. acceptance component, reasons to permit it regardless
    3. rejection component, the boundary from tolerable to intolerable where reasons to reject outweigh reasons to permit.

    Not tolerating something—not permitting it—implies prohibiting or constraining it somehow. Wherever someone could express/do/be something intolerable that usually means force to prevent/limit them from doing so. Acts (such as speaking out, not sharing your things) that don’t prohibit or constrain the objectionable still permit & therefore tolerate it.

    Tolerance has a number of paradoxes identified in the SEP, and the paradox in discussion is more precisely called the paradox of drawing the limits. By permitting the objectionable & merely objecting, it’s still tolerated & the paradox of drawing the limits isn’t really an issue here.

    As you point out, general rules (on harm, violence, force, etc) mostly resolve these paradoxes without special embellishment needed.