If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Laissez-fair paradox (Karl Popper’s Tolerance Paradox): We are so laissez-fair we breed incorrectness. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. When we stop a force from arising or going to far toward an extreme, we are practicing “censorship” (PC is a type of censorship, intolerance speaks to the sentiment behind censorship, and tolerance is a type of anti-censorship). People with low frustration tolerance experience emotional disturbance when frustrations are not quickly resolved.

226 CHAPTER 7 /NOTES 5-6[2], “Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany, "Introduction: Pluralistic and Multicultural Reexaminations of Tolerance/Toleration", "Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, Chapter 4, Document 33", Learn how and when to remove this template message, "The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes".
Essentially, any position that can be taken on tolerance that has odd and unintended effects is a paradox, so there may be more sub-paradoxes and such I haven’t named.
We need to look at reactions to counterculture movements, and the use of “cultural Marxism” (or fascism or laissez faire) to create a totalitarian state, and not at the validity of civil rights, free love, and the equality of the sexes (as our love of these classically liberal values will surely blind us from the overarching point). But we should claim the right to suppress them 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, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. So let’s persecute whomever we please. Therefore, in his opinion, it is valid to suppress such agitators before they take advantage of and destroy the society that extended them the benefit of the doubt (effectively stopping them from biting the hand that fed them, by stopping them feeding at all). Some on the right use similar logic to the "everyone is racist" argument, stating that because no one can be perfectly tolerant, the concept of tolerance is tenuous to begin with, and this gives them free reign to oppress groups that don't align with their ideal society — namely women and ethnic minorities (this becomes especially true in the case of white nationalists). Stenner has studied the political activation of authoritarian personality types, and how that activation explains the contemporary success of some authoritarian political figures as well as enduring conflicts between some individuals and the broad tolerance that characterizes liberal democracy. He claims that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. Locke's work appeared amidst a fear that Catholicism might be taking over England, and responds to the problem of religion and government by proposing religious toleration as the answer. This flawed argument can be used to justify any action against any group. Behaviors are then directed towards avoiding frustrating events which, paradoxically, leads to increased frustration and even greater mental stress. This is where the extreme authoritarians of the left and right live respectively. B-ism is based on calls to violence and insurrection.