i don't think it's flat out wrong but the problem is it doesn't define tolerance and the use of the nazis muddies the example. being an old school liberal who witnessed real problems with authoritarians, i'd imagine popper was talking about free speech and democracy and regimes that wanted to undo it. but modern audiences interpret this as fair game on people who refute their solutions for "racism, sexism, bigotry" etc, and ironically use him as justification to stifle their free speech or win elections by any means necessary, when the accused "intolerant" are not attacking free speech or democracy. even more ironic is free speech advocates silencing people who want to ban "hate speech" and "disinformation" as a taste of their own medicine would be better applying popper's paradox. anyway i think it's a dangerous game because the intolerant side could call you hypocritical
United States