Survived just fine through Judith Butler though.

When I took a couple of critical theory oriented literary courses at uni these were the names that came up again and again, but there was no mention of their ultimate transgression. This is how the myth of an entirely dangerous right and an entirely harmless left is propagated. Just don’t mention the bad parts of the left and create one continuous antagonist group out of everyone from Ted Cruz to Heinrich Himmler. Every rightist is implicated in the actions of their most radical thought leaders, but leftists are afforded the luxury of not associating with characters like Foucault, Lenin or Mao at their own leisure.

And I know that you know this but a “thought leader” doesn’t need to be alive, so that’s not really an argument. These people are tremendously influential and popular in our time (and Butler and Rubin aren’t even dead), as demonstrated by the negative response to the Derrick Jensen lecture clip linked above.

The “Paradox of Tolerance” is garbage. An interesting thought experiment where Popper came to the wrong conclusions. You can’t believe in “Freedom of Speech” AND “The Paradox of Tolerance”. They’re incompatible.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

I’ll take “freedom of speech” over “governmental censorship” any day.

Because nobody thinks about what happens if a fundie takes power and decides that abortion is “intolerable” and arrests people who make pro-choice arguments because they’re being offensive. Or if anyone makes fun of religion, that’s intolerance and you must go to jail.

TLDR: Fuck “The Paradox of Tolerance”. It’s dumb.

Yeah I get where you’re coming from but this all hinges on the concept of Popper’s Open Society taken to its most extreme.
Have you ever considered why this whole “children must be able to see drag shows” notion didn’t show up just 20 years ago?

Idk, this kind of devil-on-the-wall “this is trans GENOCIDE” rhetoric when it comes to shit like increasing penalties for indecent exposure and not allowing children to attend drag shows really just says the quiet part out loud.

Nonsense, we most certainly can. In fact, most countries “worked out” without ever needing to be tolerant in the first place.

Popper doesn’t even acknowledge that this notion can be universalized, and then you’re just back to square one with Carl Schmitt and the Concept of the Political.

Take your LGBT example. For that to work, you must be intolerant of, say, Salafis. Then the Salafi can respond that his in-group (the faithful, true to God, whatever) are being threatened by those who must necessarily be intolerant of him by nature of their own allegiance.

Thus you still end up with a value judgment despite Popper’s veneer of neutralization and depoliticization. That’s where the real philosophizing begins. How do you justify allegiance to one side of the friend/enemy distinction over the other?

The apparent paradox is solved by viewing tolerance as a social contract. Only those who adhere to the contract and are tolerant of others can have a claim to receive that same tolerance. Similarly those who are intolerant should have no expectation to be tolerated since they do not adhere to the social contract which should provide that tolerance.