fentanyl_peyotl's comments

I think there’s a difference between leaving a CP site up for two weeks so you can track the users, versus actively posting CP on legal websites for the purpose of blackmailing third parties into blocking them (“The Bardfinn Method”).

China, known for its racial harmony and ethical business practices

Tbh I do think we should look to them for how they deal with the Muslims

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.

“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.”