Please provide a few examples.

Then don't vote AOC, Elizabeth Warren, and their kind.

Problem solved.

Another anonymous commie hero.

So, dear comrade, you believe the money belong to the State and State alone. Those pesky tax cuts are immoral because how can anyone claim the fruits of their labor? Nonsense! We should tax the rich, tax the middle class, tax anyone who works, so that the State can play benefactor to those unwilling to work.

Aerodynamic automobile from 1923

.

I just checked on Kayak, it starts at 2k for a flight in September. Please stop spreading bullshit.

Facebook algorithms MAY have significantly reduce the amount of ISIS propaganda but that's only on the English content.

ISIS is most active in Arabic but also in other languages (Malay, Pashtun, Russian, etc.).

Comparing ISIS propaganda in a foreign language with US white supremacist propaganda in native language is silly.

Comparing an illegal ideology (ISIS) with a legal ideology (white supremacy) is double silly. But it shows Twitter staff is not concerned with real dangers or legalities, but political censorship in English.

LOL! Please tell me 2/two countries where Gypsies integrated / "do quite well" by any standard. That means the majority of the population taking a job, going through the education system, etc.

Nobody is forcing anyone in Eastern Europe to be criminal, that's a ridiculous claim. So many Gypsies in Eastern Europe live in poverty because those countries are, by European Union standards, quite poor themselves. A lot of people there live in poverty - some of them are Gypsies.

What would have been better in the 1930s: being intolerant of Hitler's speech and preventing the Nazis rising to power

First and foremost it's interesting to see your obsession with Hitler and only Hitler, a discredited dictator with basically no real supporters (expect for some fringe minuscule number of idiots).

Why only Hitler but not Lenin + Trotzky + Mussolini + + Stalin + Hitler + Mao, in chronological order?

Now, the Nazis didn't rise to power based on speeches, but based on violence against the German states, the German republic, the Communists, the Jews, the homosexuals, and their own factions (Strasser etc.). The Nazi speech was never the problem, their ability to bring brown shirts fury against their political opponents was.

The Bolsheviks didn't rise to power based on speeches, but based on violence against the Kerensky government, against the Russian Constituent Assembly, the priests, the rich peasants (kulaks), the political parties, and their own factions. The Communist speech was never the problem, their ability to bring red shirts fury against their political opponents was.

The problem is VIOLENCE, not speech.

waiting until violence was the only solution?

Violence only justification is against violence, and such justified violence may come ONLY from the state (as the lawful monopolist of violence), not from non-state actors.

"Popper had a pretty good point"

Popper had a VERY WRONG point. He didn't distinguish between violence /calls for violence vs. free speech.

"WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it."

Nowhere Popper refers to the appeasement, nor was the appeasement in any way related to Hitler's military build up (which he did anyway in secret, long before the appeasers), nor was Hitler the only problem (he was arguably the junior evil in comparison with Stalin / communism). But interesting how you mix facts with fiction.

"By being tolerant of Nazis a lot of people ended up dead"

There was LITERALLY nobody dead because of tolerating Nazis. There were LITERALLY millions of people killed for allowing / tolerating VIOLENCE & CALLS FOR VIOLENCE from all kind of totalitarians (Communists, Nazis, Fascists, etc.). You're again mixing facts with fiction just to promote a totalitarian call to violence against speech you disagree with. The whole point of free speech is not to protect speech we agree with, but to protect speech we disagree and even find repugnant.

"in the end we had to be intolerant of them in order to preserve freedom for everyone else"

No, that's the whole fallacy: nobody HAS TO be intolerant with free speech. As for violence and calls for violence, there are enough laws to deal with them. Stop hiding your totalitarian aims behind big banner words: you and your kin are never interested in freedom but in enslaving everyone you guys disagree with.

"Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. "

It originates with philosopher Karl Popper, and by now is well debunked as a fallacy, because it is obviously broken logic.

"In order to preserve freedom"

Funny how SJWs as yourself and openly Communists such as this person always come up with big banner words (such as "In the name of humanity" which actually have nothing to do with the problem they are so eager to offer a totalitarian "solution".

we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.

Funny how totalitarian proponents such as yourself never clearly say their definition of "we" doesn't match the "we" any normal person would assume (but rather "only we, the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists") and how they try to obfuscate the true meaning of "certain things" (which sounds benign until it is revealed it means "anything the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists disagree with, including your right to private property, safety, pursuit of happiness, and even life").

Here is a proper rendering of the tolerance vs intolerance balance in a tolerant and open society: "our tolerance should not tolerate physical violence (including attempted/incitement to physical violence)".

You realize you're trying to reason with unreasonable, extreme-left-wing SJWs?

Your opinion doesn't count because you're a SJW and a defender of SJWs.

You're confusing republic with democracy. These are two separate areas.

Republic vs. monarchy. Democracy vs. autocracy.

This has nothing to do with being a citizen but 100% with being a consumer. Stop mixing unmixable things.