I like to think of it as tolerance as a social contract. If you aren’t tolerant, you break the terms of the contract and are not privileged to benefit from it.

Nice, though the very first panel misspells “intolerance”.

I like the comic.

I get why you’re posting this comic and I contextually agree with you. However, the comic itself is bad, and it distorts quite a bit what Popper said.

The quote in the Wikipedia link that you’ve shared is considerably better:

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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; 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.

you are the intolerant one, so we should not tolerate your intolerance? do you support yourself being banned from the fediverse entirely, due to your intolerance?