>Complains about people not understanding the paradox of tolerance while not understanding it themselves

Reddit moment

The paradox only refers to violence specifically. What is intolerance? Intolerance is the refusal to engage in dialogue to influence society and instead turn to violence, agression on others & terrorism.

A tolerant society indeed cannot tolerate such acts, because they indeed threaten its very existence. As such, they must be punished appropriately under the law.

There is no extension of this principle to ideas, because doing so results directly in the breach of the right to freedom of speech, expression, thoughts, etc.

When you punch a Nazi, you are being the intolerable intolerant, because you are abandoning dialogue and resorting to violence. When that Nazi is gonna punch a Jew, he will be the intolerable intolerant, and appropriately punished for assault.

The ACLU in the 1940s or 50s defended the KKK and nazis going into a Jewish neighborhood holding a rally saying how they should kill all Jews and fucking won the case. Because such is Freedom of Speech. At the rally, there was no violence nor imminent threat of harm to any individual. They went there, spoke, and left.

And we protect that because we want to protect communist going at the door of Wall Street and protesting against the existence of the rich and the whole system.

You cannot be a liberal society when you abandon liberal principles. You are how you act, the end does not justify the means, and unjust/evil means can never result in good in the end. The only way forward is to focus on establishing just means, and the end will follow.