I don't think it was necessary to quote anyone in order to make such a simplistic point across, though I get why anyone would do that--to appeal to authority, o

I don't think it was necessary to quote anyone in order to make such a simplistic point across, though I get why anyone would do that--to appeal to authority, of course. In any case, and even though I'm not advocating here for "unlimited tolerance"--only freedom of speech, which is not one and the same--I'll bite: >But we should claim the right to suppress them [the "intolerant"] 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. Who is "we" and "us", here? Who gets to decide which community or group, which kind of action or speech, do "we" have the right to supress, "even by force"? What criteria are "we" going to use to do so? Will it be chosen through a majority vote? Sociocratic consensus? A deliberative process, perhaps? Where do we put the limit on when to act? There may be groups of people or ideas that "we" could consider dangerous enough to supress them long in advance--you know, take some risks with potentially innocent people. Let's supress political dissidents, as well; "they" could be dangerous for "us". Look, most of what is deemed "intolerant" or "offensive" isn't a clear-cut example of an existential threat to anyone or an evident danger one has to extirpate before it's too late. Moreover, the criteria is highly unstable, prone to rapidly change over media manipulation, corporations' interests, historical circumstances, culture, etcetera. I'd prefer letting everyone speak and act freely, acting with the full force of law when anyone's integrity is clearly and directly at risk, and never before.