In recent years (not just since the last election), public bigotry has been on the rise in the United States. To be clear, I’m using the Webster’s definition of “bigotry” here:

“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

Bigotry against blacks, hispanics (in particular Mexicans), immigrants in general, Muslims, women, those in the LGBTQ community, and now additional anti-Semitism are all out there. Eight years of President Obama brought some people out of the woodwork, and Trump’s campaign election pushed this even further in recent months.

Thankfully, there has been significant moral disgust to counter much of this bigotry. It may or may not be having much effect in changing people’s minds, but it is incredibly important that moral people are showing public outrage when bigotry occurs, and stepping in to defend those who are maligned or oppressed. Many people, on the left and right of the political spectrum, are just plain intolerant of bigotry!

And then there is the classic response to the response. “Hey! I thought you said you were a liberal (italic disdain added for emphasis). If you’re intolerant of bigotry, they you are a bigot too! Ha, ha, what do you say about THEM apples?!?!?” (never mind that there are plenty of people on the right who are also intolerant of bigotry…)

It’s a nice argument, but it is also both logically and morally inconsistent, and thus should be ignored. I’d suggest arguing against it, but most who make the argument aren’t likely to listen. The fact is, anti-bigotry wasn’t invented yesterday, people have been thinking about this for a long time, and moral writers and philosophers have settled this a long time ago.

The answer is, it is absolutely morally and logically correct to be intolerant of intolerance. There’s even a name for this, the “paradox of intolerance.” Karl Popper, a philosophical defender of open, liberal democracies, was one of the earliest 20th Century philosophers to make this argument.

He put together a compound/complex mouthful on this paradox, as follows: “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.”

Short version: a tolerant society that is open to many viewpoints is good. Free speech is good. But intolerance is the enemy of a tolerant society, and thus should not be tolerated.

Just because our society is tolerant does NOT mean that we have to be UNLIMITED in our tolerance. There are limits to all rights and freedoms, and they typically revolve around what is good for the society, and avoiding harm to others in that society.

So please continue to criticize, chastize and be highly intolerant of intolerance. Put bigots in their place, and show that their viewpoints are not acceptable (and certainly not acceptable to act on, in private or in public) in a polite, tolerant, open society. And don’t forget to help those who are the victims too.