Online Controversy Over Intolerance as a Virtue

This week, conservative commentator Matt Walsh stirred significant online debate after advocating for intolerance as a positive trait.

While discussing Socialist Party candidate Zoran Mamdani and the rise of mosques in the U.S., Walsh made it clear that he isn’t afraid to criticize Islam and promotes a strict zero-tolerance stance. “You know, I’m not even going to condone this. I’m actively against this. I think this is bad. I don’t want that in my community, and I don’t want that in my country,” he remarked. He went on to assert, “We need to be intolerant. Intolerance is a virtue. Intolerance is good, intolerance is sacred, intolerance is Christian, intolerance is moral and courageous.”

There’s quite a bit to unpack from this, but rather than diving deep into the specifics of Islam in America, it’s essential to consider how framing intolerance as some kind of “sacred” virtue can lead to troubling outcomes.

Walsh’s perspective on intolerance seems rather firm. For instance, those who took a stand against Harvey Weinstein demonstrated intolerance toward his behavior, which was moral and courageous. Similarly, whistleblowers exposing government faults are often labeled intolerant but embody morality.

One could say he grasps the dynamics of minorities, recognizing that a small group of intolerant individuals can pressure a larger, hesitant majority. This can be seen in everyday scenarios, like how one child with a peanut allergy can lead a whole class to ban peanut products.

Sometimes, I suppose intolerance can serve a purpose. But being intolerant—especially when it veers into all aspects of life—might seem more palatable than calling things what they are, right?

For example, if your child isn’t allowed to bring a peanut butter sandwich to school because it bothers friends, would you raise a fuss at a parent-teacher conference? Or would you rather not be the one opposing that policy? It’s a delicate balance; you wouldn’t want to come off as unreasonable.

And what about the little annoyances? Should you get upset if your partner leaves a coffee mug on the nightstand? Or feel the need to rush someone in the grocery line? The list goes on.

Walsh likely realizes that when he talks about intolerance as a virtue, he’s operating within a political context. However, he reaches many younger, impressionable audiences who might take his words further than intended, perhaps applying them to everyday situations. While Walsh expresses a desire to dismantle what he sees as leftist ideology, is it wise for devoted followers to view liberal coworkers as overt adversaries?

Here’s my take: reserve intolerance for those who deserve it. The silver rule—treat others as you’d wish to be treated—should always apply. And as the late Christopher Hitchens observed, “Gentlemen are never rude unless it’s intentional.”