The thing Popper misses is that once you rationalize your own intolerance, others will rationalize theirs, missing the nuance of his limit. And, indeed, that has happened.

I can't remember ever seeing anyone other than you mention the limit, and that includes quite a few people quoting Popper to justify their intolerance.

I'd argue that Popper left his wheelhouse when he formulated this. It was at the moment when WW2 was ending and the Cold War was beginning. Philosophers, like most other people, hardly ever think clearly when their emotions are inflamed by current events. They are best when they stay away from the topical.

He's not advocating for a world free of intolerance; in fact, he advocates for the use of intolerance when necessary, and describes when it is necessary. Intolerance can be rational, after all; and intolerance can be moral.

FWIW, I am aware of the full quote because I've seen it elsewhere; but then, I used to spend quite a lot of time arguing on the intarwebs.

The thing Popper misses is that once you rationalize your own intolerance, others will rationalize theirs, missing the nuance of his limit.

He advocates to be intolerant of those who refuse engage in rational argument and those who opt for violence.

The nuance is in the limit. If a person, in their intolerance, is resorting to violence towards those that are not doing likewise, then they are in the wrong. Even if they believe that they are abiding by the limit when doing so. Rational argument should always be the preferred course of action, and intolerance and violence only as a bitter last resort.

People miss the nuance and become intolerant even when violence isn't on the table.

Of course, but that doesn't mean they're unwilling to talk, and it's only when they cause violence that we should be intolerant of them.

Ergo, tolerance is too broad of a term to be a meaningful part of any rational discussion.

Also in the Wikipedia page, it mentions the very similar thoughts of Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson had already addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech, concerning those who might destabilize the United States and its unity, saying, "let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

Even that line is blurry. A lot of people who reject rational argument will give the appearance of accepting it, but then after a little while you realize they're not even listening to your rational arguments and they're just spouting more and more irrational nonsense each time.

> 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

How this typically works out in the real world is a lot like the pot calling the kettle black though - ideologues and casuals on both sides (yes, I said it!) can be easily observed in massive quantities refusing to address valid points of disagreement, often via clever rhetorical techniques (memes, thought terminating cliches, etc) like JAQing Off, SeaLioning, "bad faith", "irrelevant/word salad/meaningless", etc - if you don't believe me, try searching HN for some of these terms and examine the surrounding context.

> teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

I would say that this is the important line to be drawn.

Super important....but I prefer my optimization to be more fine-grained. Yes, this is much more complicated, and prone to conflict, but I think it's better for humanity to develop these skills before developing the means to damage things with extreme efficiency (industrial & IT technologies, etc). So we've screwed that up big time, but if you find yourself in a hole, best stop digging.

I don't think the limit is as clear as you seem to think, especially in the age of modern social media and their effect on discourse - filter bubbles, using outrage for engagement, amplification of otherwise-marginal beliefs, etc. Is an organized disinformation campaign (even if not state sponsored) "willingness to engage"? It rather seems like an attempt to prevent or disrupt rational argument, even though it doesn't involve physical violence. The line for "engaging in rational discourse" needs to be as clear as the one for when suppression might be justified, because they're inextricably linked. Popper's ideas are very useful as a framing device, but sorely need update and elaboration to become applicable in the real modern world.

An organized disinformation campaign is what I would consider to be irrational argument and deserving of regulation; we already accept limits on deceptive and harmful expression by way of regulation and criminal legislation. Ie, one can't simply sell strychnine and claim it's a panacea, or defraud investors with cooked financials.

But that's different from a zeitgeist of individuals who believe in falsehoods and argue for what they believe to be true; any single one of which may be acting rationally and arguing in good faith.

Popper is literally talking about Soviets and Nazis marching into your country and killing dissidents.

It's ridiculous to extend his thinking to our modern and relatively mild transgressions.

I don't think Popper was so daft as to believe that only Soviets and Nazis are capable of the kind of intolerance that should not be tolerated. I'd daresay that democracies happily carrying out repressions, summary executions, lynchings, concentration camps, institutionalized slavery, etc, etc would meet that bar as well.

You don't need to drape a swastika around you to be a fascist, you can get by just as well with any other flag.

The point is that he wasn't talking about people saying dumb shit on twitter. He's talking about people using intolerance to justify physical violence against people.

When the dumb shit on twitter is justifying physical violence, does it count?

Even *that* line is blurry. If you forbid people from directly inciting violence, they'll jump to "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?" and then someone will, in fact, rid them of the meddlesome priest. Did they incite it? Who can say?

You are wrong. That's exactly the point he is making. That we have to take action against intolerance before it gets to the point of physical violence.

> 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.

The thing he wants suppressed here is the act of 'denouncing all argument' and of 'forbidding their followers to listen to rational argument' and of 'teaching them to answer arguments by the use of (force)'. Any of these Quips remind you of anything in modern discourse? They should.

Because he's not interested in seeing if their grab for power is actually going to work or not, before suppressing it.

To continue quoting Popper:

> We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

And a lot of the shit on Twitter today is ranges from skirting those lines to stepping right over them. He views this behavior on a spectrum of borderline-to-actual criminal.

If what he was preaching was 'wait for fascists to start beating people/doing the Beer Hall Putsch/invading Poland before doing anything about them', it wouldn't be called The Paradox of Tolerance. There's nothing paradoxical about stopping intolerant violent action after it starts. What's paradoxical is that you have to stop intolerant violent action before it starts, by stopping intolerant non-violent action.

I've often considered that his paradox lays in the fact that he advocates for intolerance towards those who advocate intolerance.

But in practice it needn't be a paradox, in practice, would it? In the same way that we grant the state a monopoly on violence, we could grant the state a monopoly on intolerance. And we do, here in Canada, by way of hate speech laws and charter protections for various protected aspects of persons. The state is intolerant of intolerance, and it works pretty ok.

I'd like to point out that the US had people with literally Nazi flags walking through the streets attacking people who looked different, supported by a significant portion of the establishment (including a president). I would not call that minor transgressions. How do you think Hitler got into power?

This endless catastrophizing, something you're taking part in, is a big part of the problem.

Trump isn't Hitler and Antifa burning down police stations is not the Warsaw Uprising.

I never said that Trump was Hitler. That's a completely irrelevant statement. Obviously no leader in a western country is going to say I will become the next Hitler, even Putin does not glorify him. That doesn't take away from the fact that he had/has extremely strong totalitarian tendencies, is continuing to undermine the democratic processes and sympathises with open white supremacists.

I as someone from a country who knows a big deal about how the dangers of fascism am certainly worried if the world's most powerful man talks like that.