"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 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and 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."

Popper considered "intolerance of intolerance" as a response to be state-issued suppression and that the preferable alternative was the court of public opinion (and rational argumentation). IMO, it's clear here he's not just talking about strict authoritarianism. Especially given the phrase "any movement preaching intolerance..."

Call me when SJWs are stringing up conservatives to murder them and then we'll talk.

>liberal interpretations are now too broad

Do you have examples?

>As I say in the article, Popper restricted the tolerance paradox to very authoritarian movements.

And? There's extremely authoritarian and pervasive elements of our culture—like conservative Christianity. The blog post even opens with a defence of a Christian who want to impose their religion on others.

My faith demands abortion when it is appropriate. How can defending against a substantive attack against the free practice of my faith be intolerance without first applying that measure to initial attack?

A person can express anything they want—it doesn't mean people are going to like them. Belonging to organizations is a privilege reserved for those who play well with others.

ok so how about conservatives and their interpretations?

you are on a philosophy sub you literally do not get to just ''one side'' this thing.

next both the paradox and ignoring it threaten society, so what is your point here? we have hard evidence of what happens when all speech is free (Nazi Germany) and what happens when no speech is free (North Korea).

conservatives sure love hierarchies and group think until the positions on the totem pole change.

frankly both conservatives and liberals are one and the same (i mean Liberalism is a conservative ideology ffs) and both seem more then happy to crush any and all peoples rights if it means they 'win'.

keep simping for the system that crushes us all (the enemy are the wealthy).