He does not imply 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 most 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.
I think the word "intolerant" has become such a loaded term that phrasing it this way will simply invite people to twist the words around. They'll just take whatever position they're opposed to and declare it to be "intolerance" and therefore worthy of suppression.
> In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
Even as it is with the word - tolerance, it is not particularly insightful in any profound way to me. Can you explain? It just says that in order for the society to remain tolerant, it must get rid of intolerance. To which my brain goes "No shit!", would love to get more insight.
Doesn't this imply that censorship must be allowed for a free society?
Coming to the main point, I think the meaning behind the phrase is that absolute tolerance is not sustainable; a line must be drawn somewhere and yes, we can argue till end of time where that line needs to be drawn as long it is drawn somewhere.
Thank you, I now see the central point "absolute tolerance is not sustainable". That reads far better than the original paradox.
Discussing the point itself: Yea it makes sense though and I had arguments with a liberatarian friend who wants 100% anarchy. No police, no laws, no anything, no FDA, no Fire department and no medical laws, no lawyers, etc. My argument was that such a society is impossible and would crumble upon itself. One bad actor and the entire society falls apart.
Replace tolerance with "free[dom]" and intolerance with "censorship" without losing its meaning and getting rid of the word play.
"In order for society to be free, it must censor censorship."
even simpler:
"In order for society to be free, it must be free from censorship."
Freedom and censorship are antonyms of each other (mutually exclusive). So obviously, its a paradox.