simple paradox of tolerance shit

Nah, misinterpretation. Censorship doesn’t stop shit. Suppression of intolerance means stopping it through coercion or criminalization.

we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

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

Moreover, intolerance doesn’t mean the baby-brained notion on the internet of espousing offensive, exclusionary views. The nonviolent & noncoercive are still tolerant. Intolerance means rejection of rational discourse through appeal to force: coercive/violent action or incitement of it to overthrow a tolerant society.

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 opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.

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.

Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism, and it’s extremely moronic to pretend it does.