A good and thorough exploration of the paradox of tolerance.

It ends without any answer though, literally just "accept the paradox is there, and move on".

It feels kinda weird.

If liberalism is to survive, it will require that advocates restore political humility to its rightful place. Tolerance is only dangerous if humility is lacking.

Humility is lacking > Tolerance is now dangerous

I see. It makes sense, actually, humility on the part of leaders, if achievable, would make them powerfully resistant to fascist tendencies, which is what this militancy is about.

Seeing as I come from a different background, and want to understand, can I ask you about your ideas on that? Approximately, or not, what could ways be to safeguard (or, ideally, reinstate) humility on our leaders?

There is no way to design a system which is immune from a leader intentionally trying to break it.

I guess don't vote for shameless people? Explain to the voters around you that it's a bad idea.

Yeah. I guess this is the logical extension of what I meant by "You just gotta accept the paradox and move on."

I really do wonder how other liberalist thinkers, from that space, have approached the issue. There's gotta be some who talk about it, even if this article didn't get into it.

(By the way, fully honestly, if my poking around this community as kind of an outsider bothers you, don't hesitate to tell me, I don't wanna be annoying. I'm just interested in what other people believe, and how, and especially when there's some difference for me to try to understand. I find the "whys" and "hows" of other people's beliefs, kinda fascinating)