This gets thrown around frequently as though it's some ironclad rule of nature, but hasn't actually been corroborated by any empirical evidence. In fact, the wa

This gets thrown around frequently as though it's some ironclad rule of nature, but hasn't actually been corroborated by any empirical evidence. In fact, the way that it's phrased, it's essentially unfalsifiable. What is the limiting principle? If I find "backsliding of free expression" a form of intolerance, should we be tolerant of the Paradox of Tolerance? The empirical data is very mixed, to the extent that it's essentially impossible to draw any conclusions that fit into a pithy philosophy like Popper's. At least in America, expression has gotten more free over time, with the overturning of Schenck v United States towards the far more permissive Brandenburg v Ohio and New York Times Co v Sullivan precedents — and American society has gotten more tolerant since the 1960s, not less. Yes, America has problems today, but they're nothing compared to the problems America faced back then. Even comparing data points today, expression is far more restricted in countries like India relative to peer Western democracies (especially the US), and the former is far less tolerant and increasingly more authoritarian (under Modi) than the latter. The Paradox of Tolerance is a really convenient way to shut down any kind of debate because nobody wants to be thought of as intolerant.