JonasDarkmane

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#The_paradox_of_tolerance
A trap that many extremists seem to fall into is when they quote Karl Popper on the "Paradox of tolerance" without realizing the paradox they are presenting themselves. Although the motives behind quoting him are quite clear, Popper's idea is actually something to look into. 

Being intolerant towards intolerance is itself a paradox. Many who use Popper's quote do so in the name of being intolerant towards the "intolerant". It is nothing but a justification to take some form of action (violent or not). But that is what is wrong with Popper's idea. His idea creates new intolerance. It is a justification for being intolerant. All you really need to do is accuse someone else of being intolerant to be intolerant towards them. 
So when people follow Popper's idea and behave intolerantly, they are now the new intolerance, which other people now have to be intolerant towards until those people become the new intolerance for others to be intolerant towards. What Popper's idea does is it creates a cycle of unending intolerance. Although I don't think Popper meant for his idea to be used that way at all, it rather being more of an idea of "last resort" kind of thing when actual danger is presented (though that is already practiced. It is called the law which is policed by law enforcement), it has not be used in such a way. 

A comic that people will have often seen floating around would be this one: 

However, because intolerance towards intolerance is itself a paradox, Popper's idea can actually be used in many different ways and not just by far left extremists: 

The cycle does not end. 

That's why I think his idea pretty much falls completely flat, not only because of what I have said above but also because of "what is tolerance" and "what is intolerance"? This question seems to arise in my head as I go by the google translate definition of Tolerant = "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that that one does not necessarily agree with" and Intolerant =  "Not tolerant of views, beliefs or behavior that differ from one's own". 

Thing is, you can actually go by both. You can be intolerant towards ideas and opinions and yet tolerate their existence through the fact that ideas will always exist. You can still debate someone over their ideas without exerting to physical violence to try and "end the 'threat'". That's the crux of why I said "extremists" in the beginning, since Popper's idea seems to pop (snrk) up around discussion of AntiFa (I have not noticed this idea popping up anywhere else, maybe it has, maybe it has not) and their use of physical violence (and let's be honest) against anyone who dares to disagree with them. Undoubtedly someone will screech "but not everyone who is AntiFa uses physical violence nor are they (the different groups of AntiFa) all in agreement with each other on the actions or on the labelings". Great, want a medal Sherlock? The discussion is not centered around AntiFa but rather on Popper's idea itself and those using it to defend AntiFa's (or anyone else's) violent action. 

If you want to be intolerant, great, go ahead (just know that breaking the law is breaking the law and you open yourself to repercussions, just so that is clear). If you want to comfort yourself by saying you are only being intolerant towards the intolerant, go ahead, I don't care. If you want to be tolerant, whoopdie do. But quoting Popper is not an excuse nor does it achieve you anything unless you want to try and create a discussion around his idea. 

Am I preaching tolerance towards intolerance? No, I am not. I am not upholding intolerance towards intolerance either. I am just pointing out that Popper's idea is a propagandized one. Being intolerant towards "intolerance" does not make you tolerant. It only makes you tolerant towards certain/specific ideas, while you are intolerant towards others, but that is not necessarily a bad thing (could very well be a really good thing (in your mind at least). I know, semantics) because your ideas are subjective. 
My own opinion and feelings over the usage of this idea, why I am so against it, is because it inspires vigilantism. I am against it. I'm against people taking the law into their own hands. I am not saying that there is never a case to do so, that oppressive regimes/governments don't exist nor that corruption or bad laws don't exist either. But by constantly doing so, you inspire others to do so (from the other end of the spectrum), plus it is an attitude of holier-than-thou. So no thank you. 

My rating on Popper's idea is:
One Nuclear Bomb Gandhi "Gotta Nuke Em All"

Disclaimer: My rating won't be a sensible one nor an informative one. I just like presenting some dumb humor. 

(I might start blogging about ideas and stuff, but I had pretty much already written this up over here and put in the images and everything, so I will just leave this one as a status update because bleh)