Talk:Paradox of tolerance

Should Karl Popper's definition of "intolerance" be given?

I think it would be a good idea to add it to the beginning of the article, since it makes it easier to understand what the paradox is about. Popper used to define intolerance as the attitude or refusal to rationally discuss a point of view, as well as his attempt to impose it through violence or other methods. A direct quote from one of his books would suffice. ComradeHektor (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It actually is given in the quoted text block, in the section Proposed solutions. The thing is, that one paragraph, which is actually part of a footnote, is the entirety of what Popper wrote on the topic in Open Society. He doesn't actually spend a lot of time on the topic. This article kind of buries the lede - since that passage is Popper's entire thesis, it should appear toward the beginning of the article and be presented as such.

As an aside, there's a lot of subterfuge that goes on with contemporary invocation of the paradox of tolerance. Popper himself defined "intolerance" rather narrowly and tended not to favor legalistic solutions except where absolutely necessary, but rather control within the sphere of public opinion. What many folks on the social justice left actually mean when they invoke "intolerance" as something to be directly suppressed is a concept far closer to what Herbert Marcuse was advocating in his essay Repressive Tolerance, which advocated active suppression of "intolerance", defined very broadly by Marcuse, as including pretty much any kind of conservative or even non-leftist ideology. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right, given that I've seen leftists link this page 50 times now in attempt to justify murder in response to speech they dislike.

Do you think we could maybe put Popper's text in bold here?

"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."

Maybe underlined with the blinking ants boundary at the top of the page? 207.32.162.180 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. ComradeHektor (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added the quote at the beginning of the article, I hope no one reverses it or something like that. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the discussion, but there is a user without an account who has been vandalizing the page. ComradeHektor (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You’re vandalizing the page by filling it with non-neutral, fascist propaganda. 2603:9000:CFF0:8700:113D:D8A8:1150:3A20 (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It's amazing how they show up to provide an example, sorry you have to deal with it 207.32.162.180 (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Popper's definition

As readily evident from Popper's definition, he himself is the source of the supposed paradox, because he conflates closed-mindedness with violence. For example, I am intolerant of cigarette smoking in my car, but I do not use violence to enforce that. Those who conflate violence this way do so because they either do not want to properly distinguish it, or because they are genuinely fearful that violence will be used to stop them from imposing themselves on others. ~2026-12996-96 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)