Copying this from my reply downthread, because respectfully, I disagree that intolerant speech must by necessity be met with censorship or violence:

There's a sentence in the paradox of tolerance that is universally fucking ignored.

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.

That's from the original author, Karl Popper, in the piece in which he originally defined it.

I'll openly accept that in many situations, we're past the point where things can be reasonably kept in check by rational argument and public opinion. But that is what we should be reaching for, not the normalization of this constant state of rage we all seem to be heading towards.

The phrase "paradox of tolerance" is almost never used correctly; it's usually used to justify the stifling of speech, rather than the prevention of violence.

Violent resistance to fascism is justified, but that doesn't mean violence is ever anything but a tragedy. Are you happy that the allies killed loads of axis fighters in ww2, or sad that it was necessary? Bloodlust never brings peace even if it's supposedly for a good cause.

Kirk's killer's political affiliations remain as ever a matter of speculation, so calling it "infighting" is at best wishful thinking.

Nah. There's no moral equivalence, it's just that things can be wrong without being as wrong as something else.