> Popper took pains to make clear that he did not mean the expression of intolerant words and ideas, but in fact the opposite: They who must not be tolerated are those who wish to silence discussion and debate

Right.

Killing “the jews” silences discussion and debate.

I’d definitely advocate reading Popper’s own words instead of the potentially ambiguous wikipedia summary.

That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe. From the other side, you look like the intolerant one.

Really, I don't think mentioning Popper is a facile response ;) One should actually be familiar with the source material to criticize it.

You spout relentless apologia for Chinese government actions; for instance, you were arguing with me in the other thread about whether the pressure focused on the NBA/Rockets was Chinese government action. Silver has now confirmed that it was.

obligatory rebuttal whenever this gets brought up to excuse censorship: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...

recent subthread on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21229775

Debunked

Karl Popper was talking about intolerance as in a group who resort to violent actions against another group (e.g. killing people for making cartoons). Merely expressing an opinion is never intolerance. Karl Popper, a lifelong supporter of free speech, must be turning over in his grave to know that his opinions are now being used to stifle speech.

Also who gets to define who is intolerant? Chinese government will surely say that the Hong Kong protesters are intolerant. Does it make it okay to censor 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

I completely agree that opposing views that can be argued against rationally should always be allowed. But we were talking about literal nazis who advocate (and act upon) VIOLENT intolerance.

Who gets to determine who is a "literal Nazi"? Is Jordan Peterson a "literal Nazi"? His films are currently being canceled.