[toss1]

Yup, an he was an early (in this cycle) example of the importance of the Paradox of Tolerance.

"A concept advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper which claims that unlimited tolerance necessarily results in the destruction of the tolerant by the intolerant, resulting in a society in which tolerance is no longer possible. Therefore, while paradoxical to the concept of free speech, it is necessary to be intolerant of intolerance. "[1]

In short, in a society of unlimited tolerance, the intolerant will drive out tolerance and take over. In This murderer's example, by simply eliminating those whose views he doesn't like.

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[toss1]

Seems the point is being missed here - the point is that tolerant societies must nevertheless be vigilant to contain serious intolerance or it will take over.

It is easy to have an absolutist rule "oh just let anyone say and do anything". Seems like the simple freedom, but the paradox points out that this WILL be hacked and destroyed by some intolerant group.

It is much harder to implement a few constraints that are actually required to keep things free. But it is necessary (and that murderous rampage to literally eliminate a class of future leaders is an example of why it is necessary).