Your thought experiment does not correspond to what I am talking about. Your thought experiment correspond to the following situation: "someone is intolerant an

Your thought experiment does not correspond to what I am talking about. Your thought experiment correspond to the following situation: "someone is intolerant and are doing intolerant actions, but you don't these actions. Maybe these actions are intolerant to level 10, maybe they are intolerant to level 2". In what I'm talking about, you assess the situation and come to the conclusion "Mr A has done an intolerant action of level 2, so, we react by using anti-intolerance of level 2. Mrs B has done an intolerant action of level 10, so, we react by using anti-intolerance of level 10." The "all or nothing" is not working well, I have a thought experiment. Let's say you were a judge at a trial. The evidence has been presented, and it's up to you to make a final decision. The trial contains a lot of proofs and shows that the defendant stolen something. But you can only condemn the defendant for murder. If it's not murder, you need to let him free, and, if he want, he can steal again. If he steal, he may be arrested again, judged again, and released again without sentence, because it's not murder. > And as Popper (and Plato before him) argued, such a distinction requires a despot to determine who is unacceptably "intolerant" and who is merely intolerant of the intolerant That's social study 101, and if you don't realise that this challenge appears in EVERYTHING related to social, then I doubt you can provide anything constructive. Who decide that murder is bad? Who decide that underage alcohol drinking is bad? Who decide that putting employees in situation where they have to choose between bad salaries and not having anything at all is bad? ... There will always be a "despot" who judge what is good or bad. The trick is that this despot should be an active and continuous discussion between citizens not based on emotions, but based on what is fair.