The paradox of tolerance relies on a lot of assumptions that don't really work in reality. We don't tend to see more open societies have more intolerance, quite the opposite. Part of the problem is that "the intolerant" is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other. And those who are intolerant towards the intolerant are themselves part of the intolerant.

For a less-political example, let's imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux. However, some people who absolutely hate linux show up and start posting anti-linux memes. These people get insulted, downvoted, and eventually banned by others on Lemmy, because they're showing intolerance towards linux.

But then what happens to those anti-linux people? They go off and created their own forums, and talk about how intolerant lemmy is to people who don't use linux. So whenever a linux user shows up on those forums, they're inevitably banned. The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there's no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.

Now imagine an alternative - instead of banning the anti-linux people, pro-linux lemmy users decide to engage with them and correct misconceptions about linux. After all, linux, like many other topics, can get kind of complicated, and linux users need to remember that not everyone has the same background knowledge that they do about the topic. Sure, some linux haters would be persistent, but maybe others would be like "hey, these linux folks are actually kind of cool and helpful, I want to be more like them." That may sound idealistic, but I think that's a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.