0/10 bait, try harder next time
On an unrelated topic, tho, just because it triggers mah 'tism:
I'm not a fan of Popper or anything, and can point to plenty of things he said on politics that I disagree with. But it's worth noting that the "paradox of tolerance" SJWs parade around today, in a pathetic attempt to justify their insane anti-intellectualism, is born of a willfully dishonest misrepresentation of what Popper was saying here, because no reputable philosopher of historical note has ever uttered something so blatantly nonsensical. The FULLER CONTEXT of that quote was:
>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies;
tl;dr: reelz>feelz & words=/=violence as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.