[8bithero]

Your concerns about the potential pitfalls of establishing a censorship regime are 100% warranted. However the paradox of tolerance, as described by Karl Popper, is quite relevant here. Popper posited that for a society to remain tolerant, it must have the right to be intolerant of intolerance. This seems contradictory, but the essence is that unchecked tolerance can eventually be exploited by the intolerant, jeopardising the very foundation of a tolerant society. Popper emphasised that the intolerance which shouldn't be tolerated is that which refuses to engage in "rational argument". It's crucial to strike a balance to ensure the preservation of free speech while preventing its misuse.

[concordDance]

> Popper emphasised that the intolerance which shouldn't be tolerated is that which refuses to engage in "rational argument".

This is the key bit most people miss out.

"You should be intolerant of intolerance" is a useless heuristic. You can rephrase most moral statements to be intolerant.

[petsfed]

One of the better "solutions" I've seen to the paradox of tolerance is to stop viewing tolerance as a unilateral act, but rather as social contract: You agree to calmly, respectfully, and rationally engage with my ideas, and I agree to do the same for your ideas. But if either of us refuses, then the other is not obliged to maintain the tolerance.

I think whenever a bad actor tries to talk about tolerance re: being "muzzled", this different formulation of tolerance should be brought up.