>> Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society.

> It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.

This is a non sequitur. GP placed a bound on tolerance.

> You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all.

GP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has asserted anything of the kind. In fact, I suspect he's somewhat opposed to the same, since he's opposed to "illiberal political beliefs" which are themselves quite aligned with "xenophobic political movements".

In any case, I think you've entirely missed the pragmatic points of the GP's post, which is that such illiberal policies are, throughout history, used against the marginalized peoples they are ostensibly intended to protect. Given your previous statement about unbounded tolerance, it feels like you should be in agreement with the GP on this point; unless you're saying we should just skip the tolerance and go straight to intolerance.

> Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.

And to allow discriminating against "wrong" opinions is how intolerance becomes the norm.

> And to allow discriminating against "wrong" opinions is how intolerance becomes the norm.

Do you feel that plotting to overthrow a democracy to install a totalitarian despot while discussing political assassinations is a grey area that's up for debate whether it's "wrong" or indeed undoubtedly wrong?

I mean, considering how this very same political group killed police officers during their coup attempt, where do you personally draw the line on murder?

Obviously that's a hard question with no perfect solution. That being said, I don't think _talking_ about something should be illegal. You and I talking about how to assassinate someone shouldn't be enough to put us away for years. Doing something or attempting to do something is where I draw the line.

Now, of course, I see the problem of letting people freely talk about killing people, overthrowing the government or running concentration camps. But forbidding this kind of speech is not going to prevent it if the pull is strong enough; even worse, it's going to strengthen their narrative about oppression. Instead, it should be possible to openly discuss why this is wrong. To understand why someone has an opinion and showing him why that trade-off is not worth it is far better than trying to forbid even thinking about it.

Now, I know that our action prevention might need some form of surveillance to prevent radical groups from taking actions and, at its worst, might fail to prevent some unnecessary violence. In my opinion, though, we can have much more freedom and maybe even prevent more people from radicalizing than by trying to censor wrong thoughts.

> Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.

Actually, I believe everything works out if everyone is intolerant of intolerance. That would include suicide bombers.

People need to stop imposing on others.

The problem is that once you have that loophole in the ideals of free speech, people start calling everyone they disagree with "intolerant" in order to feel good about themselves while shutting down the speech of people who disagree with them.

> People need to stop imposing on others.

What would you think would work if an authoritarian political movement plagued with xenophobia wants to use your work as a key tool to start imposing on tolerant people?