The danger in this point of view is that if not held to an extremely strict interpretation and substantial burden of evidence, this is indeed precisely how you

The danger in this point of view is that if not held to an extremely strict interpretation and substantial burden of evidence, this is indeed precisely how you end up getting eradications. The greatest irony though is that so often the people history comes to record as the 'bad guys' are the people who think they're the 'good guys' protecting society from some perceived eradication. Think about things like the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials for extremely clear examples. These people didn't hate the people they were attacking. They'd just become so deluded in their own self righteousness that they thought they were saving society from immense evil. In reality though that evil existed only in their head. And while Don Quixote may have only swung at windmills, in these cases many people lost their lives for doing no wrong. --- In reality the paradox of tolerance, as it is used in common rhetoric is completely nonsensical. Popper made an extremely clear distinction between words and violence that people often ignore when appealing to his argument. When a person moves from speech to unprovoked violence, eliminate that individual from society with the greatest of urgency and severity. Until, and after, that point - tolerance thrives without condition.