You edited your answer so I will comment on the last thing you wrote.

> Never mind. I’m wrong about everything as usual. > How the fuck do I delete my account?

Admitting you said something incorrect takes courage and it never feels great. Everyone says something incorrect about something at some point. I would have no account if I deleted it every time I said something incorrect. God knows I make mistakes on a regular basis. Just because you said something incorrect now does not mean you will have nothing positive to contribute to another discussion. Just take it as an learning opportunity.

I don't think Popper was saying what you think he was.

"[Popper] does not however want us to silence or censor them, but to fight them back with reasonable arguments. He does however say we should have the right to be intolerant (even violently!) to them if they are not ready for a debate, as they may prevent "their followers [from listening] rational argument, because [they say] it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." [0]

The Paradox of tolerance advocates violence against those that would prevent speech, not those with intolerant views, unless those be the same group.

Using the Paradox of tolerance the idea of censoring speech you do not agree with, especially when using government authority to do so (monopoly of violence and all that), would be an intolerant view point, and as it prevents debate, should not be tolerated in a tolerant society, and in the end should be met with violence.

[0] https://www.usj.edu.lb/news.php?id=9643

This quote gets trotted out every single discussion. This quote dodges the most important question. Where do you draw the line? In that quote it even says that we should fight intolerance with tolerance for as long as possible and not just censor it immediately.

"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 most unwise."

The interesting and most important question remains. Where do you draw the line? That quote simply implies a limit exists. Which most people will agree with. You will only rarely find absolute free speech absolutist where everything goes.

From the FAQ:

Can I delete my account?

We try not to delete entire account histories because that would gut the threads the account had participated in. However, we care about protecting individual users and take care of privacy requests every day, so if we can help, please email hn@ycombinator.com. We don't want anyone to get in trouble from anything they posted to HN. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23623799

Is state controlled speech, such as what the communist countries experienced in the 70s and 80s considered tolerant or intolerant in this "paradox"?

I've seen this argument (if linking to wikipedia qualifies as one) so many times, and it always strikes me that those who cite it often have either not read, or completely miss the point Karl Popper was trying to make. He goes so far as to even say: "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." I am quite sick of the usage of the paradox of tolerance being used as an attack against freedom of speech.