lmmarsano

For the record, I’m not making a free speech absolutist argument.

That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to

I’m not a self-determination absolutist

I’m not a due-process-of-law absolutist

I’m not a freedom-of-movement absolutist

I’m not a freedom-of-conscience absolutist

I’m not a warranted-search-and-seizure absolutist

Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that. In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.

This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward. Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny. The less common disclaimer

I’m not a censorship absolutist

is an asymmetry revealing a copout.

As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor. People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk. An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights^[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.

Drawing attention to this font by denouncing it and giving it antagonistic appeal is not an effective way to make it go away, so I think OP is secretly promoting it and wants more of it.
Nice try, OP: we’re onto your mind games.

The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society.

It’s literally not.
Repeating reductive shit they say on social media doesn’t make it true.
Your ignorance of the source material is telling.

There’s a Wikipedia article quoting part of it

[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.—In this formulation, 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 [intolerant ideologies] 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.

explaining the various takes on it.
It comes from a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies about what I stated.

The type of intolerance the quote refers to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate.
They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not force, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage.
That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.

Unsurprisingly, you shouldn’t expect philosophers who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society to defend forcible suppression of tolerant disagreements in it.
Colloquial intolerance isn’t the stricter intolerance they refer to.
We can observe intolerance of actual intolerance as posed in that book in action: we do live in a society roughly following the system that book was defending, assault (including that motivated by violent extremism) is a crime, and our society doesn’t tolerate it pretty much as I stated before.

Social media dumbasses butchered the idea into bullshit pop philosophy, and you aren’t winning any arguments by regurgitating shit that’s flat out wrong unless that argument is “How dumb is social media? Very.”

Because you’re absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance?
Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.

1. It’s a paradox, not a conclusion, and not your conclusion.
2. They were arguing about the merits of liberal governments over the unchecked power of totalitarian systems.
   Particularly, they called out the overlooked merits of intellectual freedom and political institutions structured to limit potential damage of government power through rational debate and deliberative, competitive decision-making.
3. The meaning of intolerant in philosophy is more technical than merely an opinion that disagrees with other ways: it requires literally prohibiting other ways by unjustified force.

Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant.
Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance.
Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to not tolerate it.

To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama’s son into juvie.

Anytime someone brings up paradox of intolerance in the fediverse, the chance is very high they’re completely wrong about it and are regurgitating shit they read from some dumbass on social media.

1. The paradox of intolerance is a paradox, not a conclusion.
2. The reductive conclusion social media dumbasses insinuate by invoking it is entirely wrong according to the philosopher who articulated the paradox.
3. Intolerant carries a more technical meaning in philosophy (at least to that philosopher) than a mere disagreement with other ways: it includes the element of imposing (by unjustified force) on society to literally prohibit other ways. People who do not force us to comply with their position are tolerant.

From the article (you didn’t read or understand) quoting Karl Popper (extended with the rest of the passage)

[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.—In this formulation, 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 [intolerant ideologies] 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 type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not less of it, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage. That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.

Their discussion on public policy has no bearing on the democratic consequences accepting code that “solves the problem” from people we disagree with. It’s pretty much accepting charity and doesn’t imply you promote or agree with their views at all. Philosophers generally scoff at purity policing bullshit and genetic fallacies, especially those who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society.