In my time pretty much everybody knew what Popper's Paradox of Tolerance meant. (probably due to the amount of Germans who lived through part of this, or had parents who lived through this)
It's basically you can't be so tolerant that you'd "tolerate" nazis coming to every meeting or protest you had and killing - severely beating anyone there who disagreed with them. Which did happen in Germany in the 30's. Basically once violence starts challenging the state itself, you step in and stomp. However you let it get to that point because otherwise it's a game of saying who is the nazi. It's pretty clear in popper's open society, especially when you consider when he wrote it.
It's now meant to many young folks that you have to be intolerant of what they define as intolerance altogether - this is nuts, because you can include anything under this rubric. And including "any" violence. So you have a few shootings, oops that intolerance and violence and we need to censor everyone with this view. (hence stochastic terrorism and using that as a cudgel to shut up anyone with an honest view. or today using violence against a few random synagogues to shut up anyone criticising israel)
Is this a purposeful mistranslation of Popper, or what am I missing here? And do kids actually buy this, or is this just redditor-speak? The arrogance in the former, not to mention that assumption that one is "right" is ironically the mentality Popper was speaking of.
I know this is a marxist forum who probably doesn't even respect Popper, however I don't think his original thesis is a bad idea to have.
Pictured: carton 1 that's wrong versus cartoon 2.
I still can't believe that folks actually buy into #1. No wonder why they are so censor-heavy.
If this can't even be gotten right we're fucked.
I think that's a bit misplaced. If you are intolerant of anything outside the contact of tolerance that's ok. If you are intolerant of something inside the contract it's not.
So if a person is intolerant of you for being intolerant of something within the contract they are still inside the contract and don't cause a chain reaction.
Now let's do something a bit more nuanced, let's say person A is intolerant of religion, religion is not a person so there's not need to exclude them from the contract. If A is intolerant of people belonging to a religion then it's a different matter and A falls outside the contract. So for example you can tolerate christians in general up until they become intolerant of gay people.
In practice this is done via hate crime laws with the arbiter being a professional judge in many countries and enforced by police. This is why so many constitution have protected classes such as disabled, homosexuals and religion.