Paradox Of Tolerance Analysis

The paradox of tolerance was created by Karl Popper, on whether or not people should tolerate the intolerable. His main reason for this concern of toleration is as states, “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.” Practically stating that, tolerance will no longer exist if people are tolerant to the intolerant. He believes and states, “We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerable.” So, from his statement he is saying that people should not tolerate the intolerable, but there are questions that can be raised from that statement that will be discussed later on. My stance with this paradox of tolerance is I agree with it, but I also disagree, in the fact that this paradox
Now the reason why I agree with this paradox is the example that is very common, but very true with this paradox is the Nazis and the Jews. The Nazi were obviously a very intolerant political party, but they did not necessarily begin that way. The Nazis originally did not come out saying how their plan was to persecute the Jews, so therefore they got the support to get that political party into office. Once the Nazis got into power that is when they began to show extreme signs of intolerance, but his own people either loved him, therefore agreeing with his ideas, or they feared him, therefore not speaking out against the intolerant. Then what happened once the intolerant party was then in power was they began to show their intolerance towards the Jews, which in result ended in millions of Jews being murdered. So, the paradox of tolerance is very true here in the fact that if those who were tolerant, specifically to the Jews, were to have acted against those who were intolerant (the Nazis), earlier and took a stand then quite possibly the genocide of the Jews would have never happened. Then to take this even further in a hypothetical direction, what would have happened if the Nazis won the war and spread their intolerance all over, would it have stopped at the Jews, or was there always a new group that intolerance would wipe out until all that was left was the Aryan
The main question to ask yourself is this, who declares what is tolerant or intolerant in a society? For instance, if the majority in a society see one thing that is intolerant and they believe they are the tolerant one, but another society might not see it that way it is very contradictory. So, this whole theory is based about whatever the majority believe is tolerant and intolerant. For instance, white supremacist is obviously an intolerant group, but the same people think that the black lives matter group is tolerant, when their groups are almost identical. So, this theory is extremely contradictory, even though it has a good ideology behind it, it can get contradicted because different people, groups, and society’s might perceive one thing tolerant that one group might see as intolerant. So that is the major flaw with this paradox on who decides what is going to be considered tolerable or intolerable. Overall, I do believe and agree with the ideology behind this paradox, but obviously don’t agree with it at the same time due to the major question presented earlier on who decides and determines tolerance and intolerance. That is why if there was more specification within this paradox I would 100% agree with it, but in my overall decision I cannot fully support the paradox of