https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
[...] I'm interested in anyone's take on it here. [...]
. . . However, [John] Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
Good thing history has repeatedly demonstrated that such emergency backdoors which permit ideological inconsistency "for the sake of self-preservation" cannot be abused by a reigning, celebratedly tolerant regime.
Good thing there is nothing but a flawless, incorruptible, universal high standard available for evaluating what constitutes sincere intentions about security and danger concerns minus any hidden motivations.
Good thing mere words never become as vile and threatening as sticks and stones to the runaway paranoia of a super-sensitive, twittering, daycare-for-adults generation with tender "princess and the pea" sensibilities anymore than the same ever drove their ruggedly independent, holy-roller forebears with a crooked oak stick of psychotic mania stuck up their backsides to shriek impiety committed against sacred totems.
- - -