This could not be more on point. I respect Mark Zuckerberg more for saying this. We may not agree with what people say, but we should fight for their right to say it.
"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. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
And even below that limit, even if I stand by the right of people to say stupid and irrespectable things, I stand also by _my_ right to argue them that those things are stupid and irrespectable. (This also means that I am quite open to discuss why this view is wrong. One a bit uncomfortable idea is that this way of thinking may increase polarization of the discussion/society, which is about the last thing we need.)
It allows people on both sides of the debate to shield themselves behind a persecution complex that prevents their ideas and actions from being examined. I think it's one of the worst tactics related to the extreme polarization of American politics when it comes to the death of rational discourse.
I haven't read much about why Thiel supports Trump, but I'm willing to entertain arguments that whatever he likes about Trump (hypothetically economic policy?) is more important than his sexism. I feel like most people aren't.
1. Popper assumes that tolerant and intolerant ideas are easily distinguishable, not intermingled, and that there exists some sort of undisputed authority to make the distinction. Example: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
2. Suppression of "intolerance" excuse has often been abused by brutal authoritarians to exercise their power.
3. Suppression of ideas deemed "intolerant" often dismisses real underlying issues. For example, some "racist ideas" in this us election cycle are rooted in the fact that there are real "losers" in globalization. It's a lot easier to dismiss someone as a racist than it is to understand and emphasize with where these feelings are actually coming from and try to fix the issue. I believe that racism is more often that not, the symptom of real problems.
2. Brutal authoritarians have also used elections countless times as an excuse to exercise their power. I do not think that makes democracy and elections "idealist non-sense".
3. Does it not make more sense to address the real underlying issues than tolerate bigotry and racism? I would prefer those would be kept separate issues, but to my (obviously tolerant) eyes, it seems more like there are people who really think that intolerance, bigotry and racism are a _solution_ to the underlying problems.
Wouldn't we all! But unfortunately that's not how the real world works. I think you dismissed my point though...
For example, when someone says "build a wall," it's easy just to say "you're racist and hate mexicans." But if you actually let that idea play out, you'll see it's not really about disliking mexicans, it's a response to drug problems in the US, security issues, and an economy that has failed millions (while still succeeding on the whole). I don't doubt there are some pure racist chanting "build a wall" as well, but they are in the minority (no pun intended) and if you actually fix the above concerns a lot less people would be shouting "build a wall".
But my point is, you have to let that "racist" idea be heard to understand the problem before you dismiss it as an "ignorant solution." Again, I believe racism is more often the symptom, than the problem itself.
But that is more or less precisely what Popper says:
"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."
Rational argument (in my opinion) here is _exactly_ what you say, racism is typically the symptom, and not the problem, and the problem needs to be solved. But that does not imply that we should somehow applaud racism and bigotry as free speech. And we need to say to the people who claim that racism and bigotry is the solution to the problem that they are wrong and their racism and bigotry is unacceptable. If we want to live in a tolerant society, that is.
If people choose not to do business with Peter Thiel because of his political views they aren't infringing on his right to free speech. It doesn't really make sense for them to do, especially if they are making that decision on behalf of a publicly traded company, but no one is infringing his first amendment rights.