The Atheist Ethicist has a good post on his blog, entitled Speaking vs. Acting, where he makes an excellent point about distinguishing between criticism and intolerance.



I tend to agree with what he’s saying here, for the most part, that freedom of speech is essential for any civilized society, and pretty much any speech on any issue can be viewed as critical to some group or another. But, I don’t entirely agree with him in regard to what he considers to be intolerance. He states that it is the action that is intolerant. I disagree with this because I think that one can be intolerant in their words as well as their actions.

It’s a subtle difference, and I can see where some people would see it as a paradox. But I think the primary difference is that even though criticism is a strong disagreement, intolerance is an absolute refusal to see, or even consider, the other side of an issue. One does not need to take any action to display their intolerance of a different group.

When someone makes a sweeping generalization about some group of people, I would consider this an intolerant statement. Worthy of criticism, for sure. I think the difference between criticism and intolerance, in speech, lies in the basis of the opinion stated. If it is based on some factual observations or knowledge, or even, on one’s tastes, then it would considered criticism. But if based on some form of bigotry, for example, "all ______ are _____", then it has crossed over the line into intolerance for another group.

Here’s more from the same post, in regard to science:


And I do agree with him that calling any criticism as intolerant is getting out of hand. Freedom of speech demands that criticism be allowed. In fact, freedom of speech demands that intolerance be allowed to be spoken. So, if freedom of speech is to continue, we all need to put on thicker skins, and let people have their say. Open criticism can be a positive experience. It opens the doors to lively discussion and possible learning opportunities. And when someone does say something intolerant, it can be openly criticized without having the intolerance label reflected back on honest criticism.

I disagree. I think that it is *only* by action that intolerance is manifested from thought to reality.

I may hate Unie's, but if I keep that to myself, and never take any sort of anti-Unie action, or try to restrict their freedom, what is the consequence?

A - None. My Unie-Intolerance would simply be a thought that existed in my head.

"All generalizations are False"...including this one.

Oh, but in that case, it's true...Wait a second...

I don't know if I agree with any of this but I'm open to the idea that I may.

You can harass a family right out of town with nothing but free speech. I mean, a burning cross is free speech. I can harass coworkers simply by looking at them in a way they perceive as inappropriate, much less what I say.

My question might be: Does harassment equate to intolerance. Seems to be a strange question with an obvious answer.

If you’re silent and intolerant then you’re still intolerant, especially when you go to cast your intolerant vote—silently.

I don’t think the argument for absolute tolerance cuts much cheese anyway.

I do agree with him when he states that any criticism should not automatically be called intolerance. That is ridiculous. People disagree with one another all the time. Dialogue is not possible without some disagreement and criticism. When one wants to improve themselves at some particular talent, they are wise to ask for criticism. As long as it’s constructive criticism.

Perhaps this is where the line is drawn. When criticism is not constructive or helpful, but only to demean others, would it be considered intolerant? And should it be stifled?

I suppose a lesson learned from this is that when one is criticized, don’t be too quick in proclaiming intolerance. Consider the criticism for what it’s worth. If it’s constructive, then it would be good to heed. If not, it should probably be ignored. But more likely it will be criticized in return.

Are there any criticisms that can be considered intolerant, without any action taken? I would say that there are. For example, what if I am bad-mouthing a particular group of people all the time when I’m at work, but not at that group directly? Is this intolerance? Is this harassment? I would certainly hope that anyone hearing such remarks would feel very uncomfortable and report me to management. I would also fully expect to get fired, without much recourse.

So, I guess I’m thinking that not all criticism is intolerant, and probably most of it isn’t (but I’m an optimist). And not all intolerance is active, it can be verbal as well. Where’s the cross-over line? It’s probably a fuzzy place, where no two people will fully agree on.

Well, as we're taught in the workplace, harassment is determined by those who feel they are being harrassed not those who are doing it. Perhaps intolerance is the same.

Can I suggest that intolerance is well, when you do not tolerate the ideas or actions of another? You are intolerant of another when you think it is not OK for them to hold their ideas or take their desired actions.

For example, you may be intolerant of the idea that it is OK to traffic in human lives (slavery). That is, if you would not even grant the possibility that being a slaver is a valid occupation, you could be said to be intolerant of that person, or that idea, or that action.

For me at least, this is the difference between criticism and intolerance - the willingness to dialogue, to find common ground, to at least agree that two people can differ and still be part of the same civil society. There are things that we are and should be intolerant about - that it is even important to be intolerant about.

Intolerance is marked by refusing to grant that an idea can be reasonably entertained, or perhaps in more extreme cases, even that the person you are dealing with deserves basic human rights, either because of the ideas they entertain or the actions they have undertaken.

As I have gained more life experience, I have become more tolerant, because I have seen a broader range of ways to live. I have also discovered more things I am intolerant of, at least in part because I did not realize what sort of things are considered inevitable.

So is the mainstream science crowd's criticism of ID intolerance? Not, to my way of thinking, if the message is "you have not proven your case, and ignorance of mechanism is not proof of God."