A common refrain from the far-right and their supporters and from “free speech absolutists” and their ilk, is “why are you banning me, I thought you were so tolerant!”

See, here’s the thing. Tolerance isn’t a moral virtue. It’s an agreement.

Folks one might describe as “tolerant” will tolerate each other as long as that tolerance is returned. It’s like a peace treaty. The minute someone breaks a peace treaty, it makes sense to arm up and at least defend yourself, if not go on the attack. Right? There’s no “but you said we were at peeeeace” or other nonsense. Because yeah, we were at peace. Until you declared war.

Tolerance works the same.

You can’t tolerate a Nazi in your bar or it becomes a Nazi bar. (Twitter is a great case study of this imo) Nazis are not tolerant. It’s a point of pride with them! Therefore they do not get to receive tolerance themselves. Kicking Nazis off your platform doesn’t make you intolerant. It makes you someone defending the tolerant folks on your platform. I’d argue that fascists and bigots of all kinds merit the same treatment – not only from their targets but from those who embrace tolerance in general.

Further reading:

• Tolerance Is not a moral precept
• Tolerance is a Social Contract, Not an Absolute