I can't quite articulate it, but I find the Paradox of Intolerance to be wrong (or at least, incomplete).
It seems to me that, in the context of Popper's idea, what should be tolerated vs. what should not can be largely subjective and is often just weaponized against ideological opponents.
And yet, it's also self-evidently true at the margins -- we cannot tolerate Nazism or those who call for ethnic cleansing and so on.
But it's so overused on social media as a way to say - "I find your politics to be gross, and I will use the Paradox of Tolerance to claim moral superiority."
For example, I have seen people claim you should not tolerate Republicans or fundamentalist Christians or figures like Jordan Peterson. That seems quite extreme to me, as these are all within the American mainstream.
I think you articulated it quite well, and I hope you see this reply so we could continue talking about it.
I also am very uncomfortable with it, because like many progressive ideas like this that are based on value-based judgement it is susceptible to be abused by anyone with different values. (Even, in the extreme case, by actual Nazis who may claim that ethnic cleansing and racial purity IS a moral virtue that is worth pursuing).
I also don't know how to draw the line, but I would proclaim that it's fine to draw A line. The truth is there is no such thing as a universal human common sense on such things. Countries and societies and patterns draw out of the median expectations of that society. Some cultures are more collective and collaborative, some are more individualistic.
Which is why in the US, free speech is considered more sacred than stopping Holocaust denial propaganda. But most of the developed world believes otherwise. I see both perspectives (and am personally in the latter camp, because I believe nuance is important and the US seeks very harsh lines in the sand that I don't think are practical)
So I don't think there is a universal answer for what you can or cannot choose to Intolerate (not a word?). Canada is typically closer to the US with its perspectives on the subject than Western Europe, but it also bans holocaust denial, and considers deliberate denial of trans people's preferred gender identity as the same class of discrimination as against gay people or black people. Yet in the most recent years the conservatives have settled in a very comfortable sweet spot of hate speech that isn't illegal but not supported by most Canadians. It's the same message as in the US - the whole "Trans people are pedophile groomers", and we are wrestling with what its doing to our society. For Canada, Jordan Peterson IS quite extreme. He started with occasional nuanced takes on male vs female gender roles, and a thought-provoking (even if i ultimately disagreed with him) conversation about whether recognition of pronouns was "compelled speech". But at this point, even you must admit that he's embraced the full wing of the American internet-savvy right wing.
Which is where we come to my last point - Shapiro, Walsh, and Peterson may be within the American "mainstream" but American mainstream is wildly outlandish compared to the rest of the world. It's hard to treat the Republican party as a serious group of voters when 54% of them would still gladly vote for Donald Trump today after everything that's happened over the last 7 years.
It seems to me that, in the context of Popper's idea, what should be tolerated vs. what should not can be largely subjective and is often just weaponized against ideological opponents.
And yet, it's also self-evidently true at the margins -- we cannot tolerate Nazism or those who call for ethnic cleansing and so on.
But it's so overused on social media as a way to say - "I find your politics to be gross, and I will use the Paradox of Tolerance to claim moral superiority."
For example, I have seen people claim you should not tolerate Republicans or fundamentalist Christians or figures like Jordan Peterson. That seems quite extreme to me, as these are all within the American mainstream.