Many on the right, reacting to condemnation of those on the left of their views, say "so much for the tolerant left". We should all understand the "The Paradox of Intolerance." First, 'tolerance' is defined as disagreeing with others but respecting their right to their views/actions. 'Intolerance' is not being able or willing to accept that others ideas or ways are different. Philosopher Karl Popper observes that a society that is tolerant without limit will in time be seized by the intolerant. Thus, a society must be intolerant of intolerance. He stated: "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 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." Does Democracy Demand the Tolerance of the Intolerant? Karl Popper's Paradox | Open Culture When counterprotestors fight against white supremacy or social media platforms refuse to carry content that propagates hate, insurrection and lies, it is refusing to tolerate intolerance. Examples of things that we MUST be intolerant of are racism, xenophobia, hate groups, and hate speech. We should condemn racist speech for to allow it equal footing, legitimacy and platform with all speech can ultimately result, as it did with the Nazis, in societal destruction. Distinguish that from BLM protesters (not looters - go to the web site) or gay people simply asking for equality or justice. So we tolerate protesting and free speech, but we do not tolerate protesting or free speech that advocates harm or hatred toward others. We advocate dissent, but we do not advocate dissent that advocates harm or the keeping of rights from others. Do some people go too far condemning speech as racist or mysogynistic that is not? Yes. And that is open to fair debate and I have been called out for comments - some of which I agreed with and others I explained my position on and agreed to disagree. This is all a balance, but I often respond to troubling comments as follows: "If you do not wish to be labelled a racist, do not say racist comments or be willing to explain why it is not racist." When your leader tells the hate group Proud Boys to "stand by", lies and advocates for overthrow of a fair election, calls immigrants criminals ("though I'm sure some are good people"), and refers to Nazis marching as "good people", we should all be intolerant. The paradox does exist but that does not mean we should tolerate intolerance in our country.