[satvikpendem]

This is the Paradox of Tolerance in action. One must fight against intolerance in order to preserve their tolerant ideals in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[stametseater]

Of course the clear meaning of this paradox is that everybody who disagrees with me is intolerant of me, therefore it is my moral imperative to be intolerant to everybody I oppose. /s

Or here's a better idea: The Golden Rule. Eye for an eye is how you run a war, not a civil society.

[satvikpendem]

That doesn't always work so well. If some Viking expedition is coming to pillage your "civil society," for example, there's really not much you can do except to fight. Of course, you can decide who to support or oppose as your moral imperative, but don't be surprised if it has negative consequences to you.

[stametseater]

If a war comes to you, then you've got to fight a war and an eye for an eye is the way to do that. But that's no principle on which to organize a civil society.

[pyuser583]

America used the Paradox of Tolerance to outlaw left wing parties during the Cold War and WWI.

It has a really nasty history.

It’s not common for tolerant societies to descend into despotism. Liberal deco meadows are very resilient.

Allowing intolerance is usually better than systematic political suppression.