Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance, often concisely stated as "if a society is tolerant without limits, it will eventually be destroyed by the intolerant; therefore, we have a right to be intolerant of the intolerant", is paradoxically being used to destroy tolerance, in direct contrast to its original intention. Below I will do a brief elaboration of the problem and solution I proposed in greater detail in "Solving Popper's Paradox of Tolerance Before Intolerance Ends Civilization".

The paradox presents a dilemma: should a free society allow the freedom to embrace harmful ideologies that threaten its very foundation? Popper’s passage, now often cited to support censorship or suppression of opposing viewpoints, lacks clarity on the principles that should guide us in defining and responding to intolerance. 

Most envision Popper's passage as a warning for a society that folds under the threat of an aggressive, violent ideology that begins to forcefully consume it. However, there is another weakness of the tolerant society that essentially results in its willing submission.

The tolerant can be conquered, not just through violence, but through a manipulation of language. They have opened the gates to their minds and society, eager to be seen as morally good, only to find the meaning of freedom and liberty inverted. In a dark irony, the intolerant have recruited those who espouse tolerance and now use the paradox itself to justify their own intolerance.

The intolerant masquerade as advocates of tolerance to justify their own intolerance. The intolerant demand your tolerance.

The tolerant have accepted censorship, violence, property destruction, and servitude under the guise of moral righteousness, not aware that this acceptance is not just submission to threat, but active embrace in their own society's dismantling.

"Harmful ideologies" or "intolerance" are subject to the whims of those in power, who are able to define such terms to best serve their interests. Therefore, "justified" intolerance to oppose perceived intolerance becomes whatever we want it to mean in order to advance our goals and oppose those with whom we disagree.

How is it possible to build a principle on top of ambiguous terms that we have not precisely defined? It is not, and no debate about Popper's Paradox should proceed without first precisely defining what tolerance is, as otherwise it is merely an abstract, nebulous concept interpreted differently by all parties.

There is debate as to whether Popper's passage was intended to include speech in what could be determined intolerant. Popper called it a paradox precisely because it appears to be a contradiction or a premise without answers. But is there an answer that does not require a contradiction? If so, then we can invalidate the paradox.

The key to preserving free society isn't found in suppressing speech to prevent intolerance, but in maintaining clarity about what tolerance actually means - the willingness to allow opposing viewpoints to exist without using force to silence them. Those who use censorship and force to silence opposition are the intolerant, regardless of their claims of virtue or tolerance.

What is tolerance?

Tolerance is the restraint from using force to silence or remove others from society for their philosophy, political alignment, or any other criteria that attempts to represent their culture or their ideas.

With this definition of tolerance, we are not restrained from defending the principle ideals of a free society and we must actively do so if tolerance is to be sustained. Tolerance does not require our silence in the midst of opposing views, such that our opponents in argument need not be offended. Furthermore, we are not restrained from promoting our own values. Tolerance was never meant to imply submission. Debate of diametrically opposed ideas is still tolerance.

What society needs is fewer instinctive moves for censorship and suppression, and more skills for intellectual discussion and a culture that holds intellectual dialogue and those who pursue it in the highest regard. But society has surrendered these ideals under the foolish pursuit of false tolerance, yet it need not have done so if tolerance was precisely defined and understood as stated before. A tolerant society must be its own most vigorous advocate.

Nearly all debate in current society is a debate of a reframed, illegitimate perspective of what the opposing argument represents. It is two opposing sides of fiction that are impossible to resolve, as both are untrue. Each side sees the other as intolerant, even before dialogue begins, as it is the predominant narrative, and as such, it becomes an impasse that prevents the clearing away of misconstrued perceptions instilled by propagandists.

All this is to say, there is a wall of intolerance largely constructed by media, institutions, and bad actors, and to pierce through that wall and perceive what is on the other side, we must actually talk to each other, no matter how much we are told we shouldn't. This is the one and only way out of our descent into the decrepit despair of society-wide bedlam of inward-directed animosities whose purpose is to keep us perpetually divided and unaware of the true mechanisms controlling the nature of our lives.

If you are further interested in a line-by-line breakdown of Popper's passage, "Solving Popper's Paradox of Tolerance Before Intolerance Ends Civilization" provides further elaboration on the problems of the original passage and a proposed resolution.