Jared Schmeck, the MAGA moron who said “Let’s go Brandon” at Joe Biden on national television, is now whining and crying that people are calling him an asshole for his stunt, and has allegedly said that “I’m being attacked for utilizing my freedom of speech”. Although Schmeck originally claimed he meant the comment as a “joke”, the tone of his response suggests that’s not the case. Someone who made a joke that was taken the wrong way would be apologetic under the circumstances, rather than spiteful. His subsequent comments suggest that he’s an ardent Trump supporter, and thought he’d gain “MAGA cred” in social media circles by hurling the euphemistic insult in Joe Biden’s face.

This story provides an excellent example of Popper’s Paradox of tolerance. Popper’s concept is described in his book The Open Society and its enemies. Popper said: “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.”

Modern complaints of “a liberal war on conservative thinking” provide an excellent example of this concept in action. When the intolerant individual is given a pass to promote their hateful rhetoric in a society, they will seek to market their ideas to the socially and economically frustrated, and to gain followers for their movement. What the political agitator characterizes as “intolerance” isn’t intolerant rhetoric of the same variety as what he promotes. While the agitator is eager to promote hateful stereotypes and turn various social groups into scapegoats that may be blamed for the travails of the socially and economically frustrated. What the agitator decries as “intolerance” or “a war on conservative thinking” is actually just honest responses to, or careful analysis of his behavior. In short, the agitator is asking for permission to traffic in hateful dogma, while being granted immunity from the consequences of his actions in the form of a reprieve from any proper response to his behavior. That is exactly what Schmeck is doing with his complaints about the backlash to his comment, and it’s exactly why people like him deserve no quarter, and must be made to suffer the full weight of consequences for their actions if we want to maintain a civil society.