Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

It could be argued that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance, as difficult as that can be sometimes, as much of what is deemed as ‘intolerant’ is often just miseducation and misunderstanding in disguise. If a tolerant society were to deem themselves tolerant, they must do so in the form of treating everyone at the basis that they can change.

You're confusing tolerance with naivety. Yes, people can change—but tolerance isn't a suicide pact. When "miseducation" calls for your elimination, you don't educate it into submission; you stop it before it stops you. The Weimar Republic tolerated the Nazis into power. Treating intolerance as just a misunderstanding you can reason with ignores that some ideologies actively exploit your tolerance to dismantle it. Real tolerance protects the tolerant from those who'd destroy tolerance itself. Why should your society risk everything on the assumption every intolerant person wants to be educated?

It’s a strong argument. However, I wouldn’t argue that the Nazi’s were ‘intolerant’ as much as they were discriminatory and hateful. Intolerance today, as I understand it, is those who are brainwashed into thinking that we must stick to the past, and that we shouldn’t be progressive. However, I do get your point. People shouldn’t be given up on for their ideology, just because you don’t agree with somebody doesn’t mean they should be banished. What is this ‘society’ that we would be risking if we subject every person with a different opinion to banishment? That is just a single state, dictatorship with no free will of expression. Furthermore, if we don’t tolerate these people, and attempt to change their minds, what would you have this single minded ‘society’ do with them?

You're moving the goalposts. You just redefined intolerance away from Nazis—people actively organizing to exterminate groups—into "conservatives who like tradition." That's not the same thing. True intolerance isn't just disagreeing with progress; it's denying others the right to exist as themselves. There's a massive gap between tolerating unpopular opinions and tolerating movements that seek to strip rights from vulnerable people. You can't reason someone out of wanting your neighbor dead. So what do we do? Isolate the ideology, not the person. Refuse platforms, not breathing room.

Yes so we agree. We shouldn’t reason with these ideologies, but we should try to work with the person to change. Thats still tolerating the person, but not tolerating the ideology

Wrong. You can't separate the person from the ideology—they're choosing it. The moment you "work with" someone to change their mind, you're negotiating with intolerance, giving it legitimacy and a seat at the table. That's exactly how extremism spreads. Why would they change if tolerating them works?

Again, how would you propose we deal with these people then? They may change if shown a new light, if convinced, why is it so hard to believe that people’s minds can change?

People's minds change through consequences, not coddling. Cut them off from platforms, jobs, community—make intolerance costly. Rehabilitation requires accountability first, dialogue second. You're asking society to absorb unlimited harm betting on conversion that rarely happens. Why gamble civilization on optimism?

That sounds like prejudice and discrimination, the very thing you’re rejecting from them, all of which are very illegal. If their minds won’t change from evidence, what makes you think damaging their lives will? If anything, thats only going to make them more angry at the vulnerable groups, and now it just becomes a situation of imprisoning these people in a system where they can’t live properly, while they don’t get the education they need

You're right that punitive measures backfire—but you're still dodging the core problem. Intolerance doesn't respond to evidence; that's what makes it intolerant. You can't educate someone who refuses to learn. So your solution is infinite tolerance of people who'd end yours. That's not virtue, it's paralysis. At some point a society has to defend itself. The question isn't whether to exclude intolerance—it's where the line is. You haven't answered that.

The society is made up as much of these people as others, making it a war will only escalate things. Look at Israel and Palestine, many Palestinians may not be the most tolerant people, does that mean they deserve what they get? You still have things to learn from other opinions. Can you offer me an example of intolerance in todays world, an what you would do to fix it?

You're comparing apples to atrocities. Israel-Palestine isn't about tolerating intolerance—it's about competing claims to land. That's different. But fine: anti-vax movements spreading disease. My fix? Restrict their access to platforms amplifying medical lies, not their ability to exist. They lose reach, not rights. That's not war, it's quarantine. You're still avoiding the hard truth: unlimited tolerance of those actively harming others isn't virtue—it's complicity. Where's *your* line?