A Quote by Karl Popper

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. — © Karl Popper
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.
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, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
We are one of the most tolerant societies in the world, and in order to stay tolerant, my party believes that we should stop being tolerant to the people who are intolerant to us.
Tolerance sounds like a virtue, and at times it may be. [But should] a parent be tolerant of behavior that is harming a child? Or the police be tolerant of criminals who prey upon others? Should doctors be tolerant of disease, or public schoolteachers tolerant of any answer on an exam, no matter how wrong?
Because a lot of people really associate liberalism and Democrats with tolerance, and I found it to be quite the opposite. They're tolerant as long as you agree with them! I felt like not only was I tolerant, I was curious and open-minded.
I believe we have been too tolerant of the intolerant. We should learn to become intolerant of the intolerant.
When you come across with the ideas that you don't like and even hate, do these three things: Be tolerant, be tolerant and be tolerant! Let them speak! Let the stupid and even the fools speak! Protecting freedom of expression under every circumstance is an honour for a man!
My hope is that we're going to end up with a far more tolerant society, where the erosion of privacy, to the extent it erodes, will be offset by increased tolerance.
A funny thing about tolerant people? They're really only tolerant when you agree with them.
We set ourselves to achieve a society that would be maximally tolerant. But that resolve not only gives maximum scope to the activities of those who have set themselves to achieve the maximally intolerant society. It also... paralyses our powers of resistance to them.
The problem is that tolerant has changed its meaning. It used to mean 'I may disagree with you completely, but I will treat you with respect. Today, tolerant means - 'you must approve of everything I do.' There's a difference between tolerance and approval. Jesus accepted everyone no matter who they were. He doesn't approve of everything I do, or you do, or anybody else does either. You can be accepting without being approving.
The left, unfortunately, participates in bullying more than the right does. They say they're tolerant, and they're anything but tolerant of people who disagree with them and support traditional values.
One of the things I think the next president has to do is to stop fanning people's fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided. And if we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance, then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful.
We should be tolerant to people who are tolerant to us. We should be intolerant to people who are intolerant to us.
If tolerance is the best we can do in this moment, then by all means let's be tolerant. But by stopping there, by merely tolerating each other, we miss so much.
And political parties, overanxious for vote catching, become tolerant to intolerant groups.
The tolerant liberal suddenly becomes very intolerant when their official religion is challenged.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!