Mate, you didn't argue your position; you stated a claim and then folded your arms. That's why I laughed. Not even worth the time. I'll keep an eye here out of an abundance of generosity, but I'm blocking you if your response is anything except a cogent and complete argument.

Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha

Exactly. When the conversation shifts from unjustifiable prejudice against minority demographics to justifiable prejudice against the former group, we lose track of the only important topic (since a cessation of unjustifiable prejudice leads directly to a cessation of that justifiable prejudice).

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Popper considered "intolerance of intolerance" as a response to be state-issued suppression and that the preferable alternative was the court of public opinion (and rational argumentation). IMO, it's clear here he's not just talking about strict authoritarianism. Especially given the phrase "any movement preaching intolerance..."

Call me when SJWs are stringing up conservatives to murder them and then we'll talk.

This makes a classic mistake (so classic, there's a phrase for the conundrum: the Tolerance Paradox) of presuming that tolerance itself is the end that is sought.

Tolerance is merely a means and is not a valuable thing on its own in a vacuum. We refuse to tolerate many things in society. That's why prisons exist. It's why any disincentivization structure exists.

Liberals (well, the ones who've given it any thought) aren't speaking of tolerance as though it's a value unto itself; they speak of it as the solution to a problem whereby someone who does no harm to others is being targeted and oppressed.

It's a clever rhetorical trick by opponents to obfuscate actual issues by turning the conversation away from their unjustifiable prejudice of innocent people to the liberals' justifiable prejudice of prejudiced people, an argument that obviously falls apart when examined with any depth at all. If we had to tolerate all evil in order to tolerate innocence, then society would literally either crumble or become ruthlessly libertarian/anarchic.

The whole conversation has to ethics the same rigor as Paschal's wager has to metaphysics.