"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: 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" - Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Sorry to say, but intolerance is to be defeated, with words, with votes, with lawyers, with guns if it comes to that. Ask the Ukrainian people.

If you are coming after women's rights, their autonomy, their health you shall not be tolerated.

You and Popper have very different notion of "intolerance". By intolerance here Popper means something which threatens open society and freedom of expressions, not "any opinions I don't like" (and if you read literally next few sentences you'll see Popper clarify that we should oppose ideologies which reject dialogue and propose violence instead, not any opinions you don't like). Your definition is in line with what Popper would see as fascist trait.

This is a really succinct point about the quote. You can oppose abortion whether it’s legal or not. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to live in a state like New York and oppose abortion whiles it legal just as you can live in other states where it is illegal and support it.

It's the same idea. Illegal abortion threatens society. I'm not a fascist for protesting it. The Democrats and their voters, and many Republicans are on the same opinion.

> Illegal abortion threatens society.

That's not what Popper says. Popper literally says, quote:

> 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 most 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.

Again, not any ideology you don't like may be suppressed, but only those who use sticks and pogroms instead of arguments. What you are proposing is pure fascism and something Popper was vigorously against of.

Literally my argument. The whole thread started with why don't my co-workers respect my intolerant ideas if they are all about a diverse set of ideas, and I said that diversity doesn't include any ideas. I didn't suggest suppression. People countering your arguments is not suppression. People not wanting to listen to your intolerant ideas isn't suppression either.

The guns are only coming out when the law can't help, for example because the country is being attacked, like in Ukraine. Until that moment law and order is all we have.

> Literally my argument.

Literally not. You've quoted Paradox of Intolerance applied to abortion debates. Now read the quote and try to understand why it's not applicable.

Literally is. It's my argument. I don't want to criminalize this particular intolerance, I don't want to suppress it. I want to reject it and call it out. I don't have to unequivocally tolerate it. My tolerance doesn't have to be boundless. I should be generous with my tolerance, but I'm not when millions and millions of lives depend on it. This is the line. This far and not farther.

No, Popper there goes beyond that: he requires that people argue rationally and not tell followers to ignore rational arguments. That's too high a bar, IMO. The problem is the followers' use of violence. Initiating "preventative violence" against a mere speaker (who himself did no violent act) is immoral, even if an expedient way of preventing seemingly likely violence by followers. It puts the power of judging legitimate speech in a privileged group, and it is likely to be applied unevenly and primarily on political enemies.

> Illegal abortion threatens society.

The inability to treat people who happen to hold some opinion you think despicable as equals is far more threatening to society than any one bad take on a particular subject.

Nobody suggested that though. People deserve equal chances.

> It's the same idea. Illegal abortion threatens society.

While i am for unlimited legal on-demand abortions, this statement is obviously counter-factual. Most european countries have significantly restricted abortions relative to Roe vs Wade standard (usually to 12-14 weeks for on-demand abortions), and their societies exist just fine.

Not too worried about your little war in any form. We are ready for it. People like you and your ilk are nowhere close to the Ukrainian people.