[ecshafer]

In the "Paradox of Tolerance" Popper argues that despite the apparent paradox, defending free speech and having a tolerant society is the only way to go. People use the paradox of tolerance argument often, but leave out the part where popper resolves the paradox.

[AlanYx]

Yes, Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance" is actually closer to what most people understand Popper's work to be saying.

[hnaccy]

Where does he resolve the paradox?

He says you should claim the right to suppress the intolerant and that preaching intolerance is outside the law.

[AlanYx]

Popper essentially takes the same position as Thomas Jefferson. Popper says: "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 unwise." Emphasis on the unwise -- for some unknown reason, there's this idea floating around that Popper thought it was wise to suppress intolerant philosophies. That's Marcuse's position, not Popper's (and Marcuse also is candid that his own position may be incompatible with democracy).

What Popper does agree is that societies should retain the right to act if civil discourse fails, which is again basically Jefferson's position.

[AnimalMuppet]

More briefly: When the intolerant reach for a gun, the tolerant don't have to tolerate that. Not when the intolerant speak - when they proceed past speech into violence. Then the tolerant don't have to tolerate it (and, in fact, kind of have to not tolerate it.)

[syshum]

This is why you now how people claiming "Speech is violence" and even "Silence is Violence"

They want to expand the definition of violence just like they have many many many other terms