> Why should "freedom of speech" not be defended? One argument: > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tol

> Why should "freedom of speech" not be defended? One argument: > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > The way to combat hate is by educating people better, instead of banning swastikas or whatever. This can lead to a human 'DoS' attack: > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.[1][2] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning