For me it's because I thought it was accepted progressive doctrine that violence is generally bad and it concerns me to see that so many people abandon it when it's disagreeable people getting violence inflicted on them. A trouble change in perspective

I think it’s because it’s more than just “disagreeable”. It’s about people who literally advocate killing you is sort of OK, or even preferable.

Tolerance of the intolerant, Popper, etc. etc.

Unfortunately the book isn't freely avalailable, but from what I understand Popper condemned the idea of solving the paradox of tolerance with violence, treat it as an absolute-last resort choice, while here a lot of people are turning to it as the first resort

It's absurd to invoke Popper to defend an enthusiasm for physical attacks against people because their ideologies are detestable.

<not-a-useful-contribution> Well, there was the whole Popper threatening Wittgenstein with a fireplace poker thing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittge… </not-a-useful-contribution>

More seriously, when writing about the paradox of tolerating intolerance, Popper did say "But we should claim the right to suppress [the intolerant] if necessary even by force". Who "we" is probably matters a lot in practice.

The concept of necessity, too. Punching people one decides to call Nazis is a pattern of convenience, not necessity.

Maybe my take is different because the last time it mattered, my people missed the point in time when it became a necessity

There was a lot of street fighting between Nazis and leftist groups in the Wiemar republic, something Hitler argues helped Nazis gain power by creating increasing chaos