"tolerance" swings both ways. Unless you choose to be intolerant.
The majority of people who spout tolerance and acceptance at me are the least tolerant and acceptant of other beliefs.
The majority of people who spout tolerance and acceptance at me are the least tolerant and acceptant of other beliefs.
Karl Popper wrote about this idea called the paradox of tolerance [0] asking if you should be tolerant of intolerance.
In the end after a few dozen unrelated complaints about random different things their supervisor would be thinking about getting rid of them.
If your target skinhead kept all his skinhead behaviour out of the workplace, and only displayed respect and tolerance to his colleagues, would you still organise to get him fired?
If you mean neonazi I would for no reason I can imagine tolerate them. Would you tolerate someone who hated and wanted to subjugate or murder some portion of your loved ones because they were polite at work so they could earn a living?
It doesn't, which is the "paradox of tolerance".[1]
It seems to hinge on "rational argument" to base determination on whether tolerance is warranted, lest intolerance creep in. I wasn't able to discern the bar for "rational argument". Do you have some more info?
It hands people an excuse on a silver platter to exercise their bigotry.
People who have a moral excuse to engage in evil are almost always the most dangerous and evilest of the bunch.
"I'm righteously intolerant of the political right's intolerance of my beliefs."
"Oh yeah? Well, I'm righteously intolerant of the political left's intolerance of my beliefs."
In the end, invoking the paradox is just a convenient fig leaf for those who want to justify their bad behavior.
(And that's completely ignoring the fact that Popper's answer to his paradox is not the only one, as the Wikipedia article itself mentions.)
If my co-worker is donating to Trump, and talking about kicking foreign workers out of America, they're literally talking about kicking ME out of the country. They're donating money to a politician who wants to make my life harder, and make my visa process less pleasant.
I can tolerate my co-worker all day, but if they're working to make my life less pleasant and workable, they're going to feel some chill.
Sorry you're eating alone conservatives, but you're working at a place with thousands of foreign co-workers, what did you think was going to happen?
If my co-worker is opposing Trump, and talking about bringing more foreign workers to America, they're literally talking about lowering MY wages. They're donating money to a politician who wants to make my life harder, and make my work environment more competitive.
I can tolerate my co-worker all day, but if they're working to make my life less pleasant and workable, they're going to feel some chill.
Sorry you're eating alone immigrants, but you're working at a place with tens of thousands of native co-workers, what did you think was going to happen?
And the other is a definitive slight against my worth and my legitimacy as their co-worker.
Personally, I think that high-skill immigration is a very good thing for the country, and not a bad thing for the workers in the sectors they'd be joining. It's a globalized economy - competing with an engineer from Korea when they're 50 feet down the street isn't that far from competing with them while they're in Seoul.