For context Karl Popper's quote on the paradox of tolerance:
"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 against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." [0]
[0] K. Popper (1945) 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'
> and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
It would be great if that condition was used to distinguish between individuals that are intolerant and those that simply are dissenting.
A dissenter might disagree with the rationality of the arguments being presented. They might be in minority in term of public opinion. Suppression would still certainly be most unwise.
You can’t perfectly distinguish between intolerance and dissent from first principles because the distinction is inherently political, and intolerance could also be characterized as dissent in a society that practices tolerance. In most cases though I think intolerance is pretty clear: when you start denying people’s status as full citizens of a nation, you are being intolerant.
It's the paradox of intolerance because it's a paradox, i.e. a logical contradiction. If you are tolerant to intolerant views, they will gain power and censor your tolerant speech. But on the other hand, if you are intolerant towards intolerant views and censor them, then it's ok for someone else to censor YOU for being intolerant.
You can go a step farther and say that "tolerance towards intolerance leads to intolerance, therefore we should be intolerant towards tolerance in the first place!" It's a paradox for a reason, and no high-minded solutions of "intolerance in the name of tolerance" are able to sidestep its implications.
There are two conclusions that I personally draw from it. The first is that intolerance/tolerance is not a binary, is not easily definable, and therefore there is no clear standard for what speech is right to censor and which is not. i.e. the paradox is unsolvable. The second is that "tolerance" and "intolerance" are not great words to describe the dynamics at play, they carry extra nuance that is not helpful.
(if you can't tell, I'm not a fan of the paradox of tolerance)
It reminds me of game theory and how difficult it is to create cooperator strategies that prevent the invasion of defectors in e.g. the prisoners' dilemma.
The outcome should be, tolerance for others to express their intolerance, and you to express your intolerance of their intolerance, but no one gets to shut anyone's expression's down.
You can ignore them, don't have to amplify them or give them a platform, but you don't shout them down and you don't allow them to shout others down or stop them from building their own platform.
The Communists in America have been marginalized for a long time in America, but even the most totalitarian/Stalinist believing of them aren't muzzled. Whatever one's extreme belief, a truly robust society has the tools to survive their ability to talk about them.
Unfortunately the paradox of tolerance is trivially abused. If someone concludes that Islam is intolerant, that person feels that the PoT gives them moral license to behave in tolerantly toward Muslims. I think we also see this in American culture war where the definition of “intolerance” is contorted such that it matches one’s ideological opponents. Perhaps we need a firmer test for what constitutes tolerance or intolerance, although even then the semantic contortionists would probably just redefine the terms that constitute the test.
"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 against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." [0]
[0] K. Popper (1945) 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'