> However, this fails Karl Popper's criteria, don't tolerate the intolerant.

It's worth pointing out what he meant by ‘intolerant’:

  | 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.

‘Intolerance’ here does not mean holding disagreeable opinions; it means intending to suppress rational argument. This is not a call to shout down opponents by calling them ‘intolerant’; it's a call to stop people shouting down opponents.

Thank you, I had no idea that the statement was tempered that way. The quip and the explanation together are a much more powerful and useful idea than the quip alone.

This article (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first...) expresses much the same thing, but takes a couple of pages to do it. Having a word ("intolerant" has been diluted, but maybe we can forge a new one) for people who silence arguments instead of answering them seems seems like it would greatly simplify almost all discourse.

You could use 'censors' but that might simply lead into debates over whether shutting down communication between willing parties due to the subject of their speech, in fact, censorship when the government isn't the one doing it.