And it becomes even more viable when you consider that Popper’s idea is actually based off of a social contract.
Essentially, tolerance is based on a social contract to be tolerant to each other. If someone is being intolerant, they are explicitly and intentionally removing themselves from the contract. Ergo, they no longer fall under protections, and people can then be intolerant of their intolerance.
Not everyone agrees the cops should do whatever they want and sorting it out in court later is the way
The tools of oppressors can’t be used to stop oppression. --pdf
That’s like saying the tolerant can’t be intolerant of the intolerant, when in fact they have to be.
And it becomes even more viable when you consider that Popper’s idea is actually based off of a social contract.
Essentially, tolerance is based on a social contract to be tolerant to each other. If someone is being intolerant, they are explicitly and intentionally removing themselves from the contract. Ergo, they no longer fall under protections, and people can then be intolerant of their intolerance.
How people don’t understand this concept is incredible to me.
Pick One, possibly two.
There will of course be some who haven’t considered this perspective and some who disagree.
I’d put money, however, on the vast majority arguing in favour of tolerating intolerance are the people this concept is talking about.
The actively intolerant using the tolerance of others to enact further intolerance.