"That concept doesn't mean what you think it does, in more ways than one!
First off, that was not a defense of censorship. It was meant as a last ditch effort for an extreme, dire situation. (centering especially on groups who, you guessed it, advocate for overt censorship and oppression) The person who made it popular/created it made it clear that it was not an argument against free speech and tolerance, even for so-called "reactionaries" or normal political extremists.
Secondly, it is a paradox, not a logical point freeing intolerant actions from the logical, moral or ethical concept of intolerance! Being intolerant of the intolerant makes one intolerant. That's what makes it a paradox! Modern wannabe intellectuals and ideologues have no idea what they are talking about when they invoke it today and come the CLOSEST to actually meeting the criteria for its invocation!"
First off, that was not a defense of censorship. It was meant as a last ditch effort for an extreme, dire situation. (centering especially on groups who, you guessed it, advocate for overt censorship and oppression) The person who made it popular/created it made it clear that it was not an argument against free speech and tolerance, even for so-called "reactionaries" or normal political extremists.
Secondly, it is a paradox, not a logical point freeing intolerant actions from the logical, moral or ethical concept of intolerance! Being intolerant of the intolerant makes one intolerant. That's what makes it a paradox! Modern wannabe intellectuals and ideologues have no idea what they are talking about when they invoke it today and come the CLOSEST to actually meeting the criteria for its invocation!"
Also:
https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-...
And:
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-...