[fentanyl_peyotl]

“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 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.”

Karl Popper was a free speech absolutist. His point was that every form of speech should be countered with speech, not "deplatforming" or laws criminalizing it. I wish he was alive to see people mangle his thoughts into “He actually was against tolerance and said to jail your political enemies.”

[Nursie]

> 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

The problem is that we can't. The "marketplace of ideas" that many people imagine exists, can only exist when people are interested in honest debate and evaluation of their own ideas in the face of honest counterpoints and robust exchange.

If we should learn anything from the last several years of widespread internet noise, it's that honest, open-minded debate is a minority sport. The disingenuous propagation of bullshit in furtherance of either a dollar or an agenda, is far more popular.

[jmyeet]

He most definitely was not a free speech absolutist. The very quote you include makes that clear:

> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

The quote says rational argument and discourse is the preferred option but there will be times when all rational argument will be rejected and that may require suppression.

How do you get free speech absolutism from that?

[fentanyl_peyotl]

He’s talking about violent groups who aren’t attempting to have discourse at all, and are attempting to use force to muscle their views on society.

Again you’ve selectively quoted and ignored that the people he says need to be suppressed are those who “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.” I.E. "intolerance" here should not be read in a vague sense but specifically means "people who won't tolerate hearing a contrary argument".

Popper's definition of "intolerance" is literally the thing that you’re doing: prima facie denunciation of all argument, and instinctively responding to undesired speech by trying to shut it down. He's literally saying "the only people we should silence by force are the people who refuse to argue and insist on silencing us by force" and somehow you’ve decided he's saying: "we should silence anyone who argues with us by force".

He goes into further detail over several hundred pages in a book nobody who parrots “the paradox of tolerance” has ever read.