Can't Tolerate the Intolerance
Standing Firm While Building Bridges (part 2 of a 3-part series)
In last week's article, we explored the problem of normalized outrage in the digital ecosystem and introduced practices to break free from its grip. As you've implemented your media consumption audit, practiced the 24-hour rule, and redirected your outrage energy toward constructive action, you may have encountered a challenging paradox: How do we stand against harmful rhetoric without becoming part of the very outrage culture we're trying to escape?
This brings us to the thorny issue of "cancel culture," a manifestation of intolerance masquerading as righteous indignation. It shows up like being enraged by Group X, so then I go protest against them to such an extent that my noise cancels their message. There is also the online version of this example, where the “protesting” is in the form of a response to an original post, and the barrage of reactions (many even threatening) that shuts out and shames the opinion we want to drown out or cancel.
On the one hand, we use our freedom of speech to spread our word, but in that spreading, we cancel somebody else's speech. We must pause and ask, is that helpful in creating the community we want to live in?
The Limits of Tolerance
Consider the university campus that cancels classes due to student protests, or the social media campaign that results in someone losing their livelihood over a five-year-old comment taken out of context. In each case, the opportunity for dialogue—even if uncomfortable dialogue—is lost.
Take the case of Chris Rock, who was originally slated to host the 2023 Academy Awards but found himself embroiled in controversy after old comedy routines resurfaced. Rather than creating space for a conversation about how comedy evolves or how artists grow and change over time, the immediate reaction was to withdraw the opportunity. Don’t we have the right to make mistakes and to redeem ourselves afterwards? What might have been a moment for public reflection and growth instead became another notch in cancel culture's belt.
James Gunn, director of "Guardians of the Galaxy," is another example. He was fired by Disney in 2018 over decade-old offensive tweets, despite having previously acknowledged and apologized for them. His eventual rehiring came only after an enormous public outcry—but how many others, with less public support, never get that second chance? Or are we to infer that when corporate profits are on the line (due to a possible mass public boycott), the moral line in the sand is flexible?
Or consider the now-familiar phenomenon of "Karen videos" that flood our social media feeds. The moment someone perceives disagreement or conflict, the phone comes out to record, not to document genuine wrongdoing, but with the explicit intention to shame and destroy reputations online. The rush to judgment replaces the opportunity for understanding, de-escalation, or even simple human error correction.
I've explored this tension between accountability and growth more deeply in my previous article Accountability Hinders True Potential.
Of course, there are times when people or groups need to be held accountable for their actions. However, the online rush to judgment while sitting behind a keyboard and the destruction of reputations often do not allow for any nuance. A little compassion and empathy go a long way, not just for others but also for our very own mental health.
We've confused disagreement with moral transgression, putting the ‘offended’ party in the judge’s and executioner’s chair, creating a climate where nuanced debate becomes impossible. But where do we draw the line? How do we tolerate the intolerant without compromising our own values?
An Old Dilemma
This is not a new dilemma. In 1945, Philosopher Karl Popper articulated what he called the 'paradox of tolerance', suggesting that unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance itself. If we tolerate those who would destroy the very foundations of an open society, we may find ourselves with no tolerance left to defend.
Consider how this paradox applies to freedom of speech. While open dialogue and debate are vital to democracy, most reasonable people understand that my freedom of speech ends where your freedom of physical safety begins. When speech crosses from expressing ideas to directly inciting violence, we've reached a boundary that most democratic societies recognize as necessary to preserve freedom itself. The challenge lies in identifying that boundary without silencing legitimate, if uncomfortable, discourse.
The same question has challenged great minds throughout history. Gandhi's principle of non-violence was tested when facing British colonial rule, while Martin Luther King Jr. had to navigate the tension between peaceful protest and confronting systemic injustice. Even John Stuart Mill, champion of liberty, recognized that freedom itself requires certain boundaries to flourish.
The answer likely lies not in blanket tolerance or intolerance, but in strategic discernment. We must become more thoughtful about when to engage, when to withdraw, and when to stand firmly against ideas that truly threaten human dignity. This requires a level of self-awareness and emotional intelligence that outrage culture actively discourages.
There is a saying that resonates with me deeply: "Your freedom ends where mine starts," which is a great place to start. But how do we draw that actual line in the sand?
Navigating Difficult Conversations
When faced with differing views that challenge or even offend us, how do we respond with both integrity and openness? How can we stay true to who we feel we are and be open to making adjustments to reach an agreement or consensus? Here's a practical framework for navigating these waters:
1. Establish Your Non-Negotiables
Clarity about your core values is essential before engaging with opposing viewpoints. What principles are truly foundational to your identity and worldview? Distinguish between preferences (which can be flexible) and your essence (which forms your foundation and guides your actions).
Action Step: Document your 3-5 core values with specific definitions of what they mean to you. For each, identify observable behaviors that would cross your line of tolerance.
A Note on Core Values: a core value is not a deeply held belief you picked up thanks to experience or cultural background. A core value, in fact, is a quality people appreciate about you that oozes out of you, whether you mean to or not, and you cannot fathom a version of you where that quality doesn't exist. They are usually single words you'd use to describe each, and they have most likely been showing up all over your life. Ask a parent, a sibling, or a long-time friend who knows you, and see what “the one word” they’d use to describe you is.
2. Master the Art of Curiosity
When confronted with views that oppose yours, practice asking questions aimed at understanding rather than changing minds by convincing them with stronger arguments or by force (when we raise our volume or speak over the other). This doesn't mean abandoning your values, principles, or ideals, but approaching differences with genuine curiosity while remaining rooted in your core identity.
Action Step: Prepare and practice five non-judgmental questions you can use when encountering perspectives that initially trigger resistance.
Here are some examples:
"I’m curious; walk me through how you arrived at that conclusion?"
"What experiences have shaped the way you think about this?"
"What outcomes do you hope to see from applying this approach?"
“What would happen if everyone did (or thought) this way?”
“Who would benefit from thinking this way and how?”
3. Apply the Contact Theory Strategy
Social psychology research shows that meaningful contact between opposing groups reduces prejudice and increases understanding. Create a connection, look for opportunities to engage in structured, purpose-driven interactions with those whose views differ from yours.
More importantly, when you engage, seek out those core qualities that make up who the other person is all about. Listen and play back what stands out the most in their viewpoint by using phrases like "I can see that loyalty is important to you," or "I can totally get how trying new things is like oxygen for you," or even "I hear when you say change is not something you appreciate and you'd rather keep with tradition." Seek out that core quality that's being shared and acknowledge it because, chances are, you probably value it also (and probably in different ways).
Action Step: Identify one person or group you disagree with, and propose a collaborative project focused on a shared goal. Working side-by-side toward common objectives builds bridges more effectively than head-to-head debate.
The principles of 'contact theory' have been successfully applied in various contexts. For example, initiatives like Living Room Conversations and the One America Movement have brought together individuals with opposing political views for structured dialogues.
By focusing on shared values and common goals, such as improving local infrastructure, addressing community safety concerns, or organizing disaster relief efforts, participants have been able to build trust and understanding, even while maintaining their differing perspectives.
Research consistently shows that these facilitated interactions reduce prejudice and humanize the 'other side,' demonstrating the potential of these approaches to bridge divides and foster reconciliation."
4. Use Common Values to Build Those Bridges
Core values are universal, and we can find evidence of them across cultures and communities. These fundamental principles—like compassion, integrity, growth, or security—create connection points even amid fierce disagreement on how these values should be expressed.
When you identify a core value that matters to someone with whom you disagree, use that as your starting point for genuine dialogue. For instance, you might say, "I notice that protecting a family seems really important to you. That's something I deeply value, too, though we might have different ideas about how to achieve that protection. Could we explore what that protection really means to each of us?"
Action Step: After identifying what appears to be someone's core value, create a brief dialogue script that acknowledges this value and connects it to one of yours, even if your expressions of these values differ dramatically. Practice using this script to initiate conversations that build on common ground rather than emphasizing division.
The Power of Creative Disruption
As leaders, we often find ourselves caught between opposing forces—the need to stand firmly for our values and the desire to build bridges across divides. This tension can feel paralyzing. But what if there's a third path—one that disrupts the entire dynamic of outrage and counter-outrage?
In next week's final installment, we'll explore a surprising solution inspired by an unlikely source: the cowbell. I'll introduce you to the power of pattern interruption and show you how small, unexpected acts of creativity and kindness can transform even the most polarized situations, creating space for both authentic expression and meaningful connection.
Until then, I encourage you to practice establishing your non-negotiables, developing your curiosity questions, looking for opportunities to apply contact theory in your leadership, and building bridges that everyone can get on board with.
Mariano Alvarez is the creator of the SHIFT In Life framework and a transformational leadership coaching practice built on the pillars of Personal Identity, Mindset, and Strategic Action. This is Part 2 of a three-part series on navigating outrage culture through compassionate leadership. For more insights, visit shiftinlife.com.