Can an individual be accused of being intolerant if they do not tolerate people who are intolerant?

Answer 1

Let's start with an understanding of what tolerance is. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (one of the two best online philosophy resources, the other being the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), tolerance can be described as

the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained.¹

In simpler terms, this tells us that when you're tolerant of something, you (1) think it's wrong, but (2) you're okay with people being able to do it.

Now take the case of intolerance. What happens when you can't tolerate intolerance? Well, here you (1) think it's wrong, but (2) you're not okay with people being intolerant of something.

Now, most philosophers who've thought about intolerance think this makes sense. As the SEP article puts it, since

toleration is a matter of reciprocity...

(that is, I'll tolerate you only if you tolerate me)

...those who are intolerant need not and cannot be tolerated, an idea we find in most of the classical texts on toleration.¹

But here's the puzzle: If you're not okay with people being intolerant, what about yourself? You're being intolerant too, since you can't tolerate intolerance. Wouldn't this mean you can't tolerate your own behavior?

To make sense of your own attitude, you'd have to explain why your intolerance is ok, but those peoples' intolerance isn't ok.

That's why the SEP article calls this the "paradox of drawing the limits". Solving the paradox requires explaining why it's bad to be intolerant up to a point -- at which it becomes ok.

So to return to your original question: Can a person be accused of being intolerant if they won't tolerate intolerant people?

Traditionally, the answer might be, "No, not exactly (because even if they tried to be tolerant, the other people wouldn't return the favor)". However, we have to recognize that this answer comes with a built-in puzzle: If that's true, can they explain why the other people not returning the favor makes not-tolerating them ok?

References

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/#ConTolPar

Answer 2

Yes & No, a contradiction

See the Russell paradox

the paradox of set theory

the barber paradox

the supposed proposition: "This sentence is false" Is it true or false? If it's true, it's false, if it's false, it's true. So it's neither true or false, yet a logical truism, tautology is that every proposition is either true or false. P v Q.

& more

but aside from paradoxes there's a hierarchy of values,

values that compete with tolerance

our courts value marriage so much, they allow a spouse to not testify, to maintain the marriage over truth or justice

Aristotle's class values compete with one another. truth, justice, courage, loyalty, and more.

tolerance of intolerance may depend on what other values or virtues are involved,

How much should we tolerate Russia invading the Ukraine? IF we don't intervene militarily, taking the option of US troops in the Ukraine off the table, we already are saying some other value outweighs, to some extent, the value of the Ukraine's freedom and independence.

Same with tolerating intolerance.

Our First Amendment values free speech, even if it is speech which harms some people. As Voltaire said, he disagrees with you but would defend to his death your right to say what you believe. Even hate speech is protected by the First Amendment which places a higher value over freedom and liberty over stopping intolerance.

Our Fourth Amendment values privacy over truth or justice, to the point of letting the guilty go free in spite of iron clad proof of guilt, if that evidence was obtained illegally.

Tolerance is a valure or virtue, but it may be overcome by competing values that are more important.

Aristotle's solution was the "golden mean," finding extremes "intolerable" or wrong.

courage to Aristotle is the mean between cowardice and recklessness

truth is a mean between lying and brutally cruel truth telling

tolerable tolerance might be to Aristotle the mean between intolerance and tolerating too much intolerance.