The best solution I found for the Paradox of Tolerance (or, more accurately, for a bigger class of problems that contain that problem) is https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/24/nominating-oneself-for-the-short-end-of-a-tradeoff/

The gist of it is that we decide on the following maxim: in conflicts of interest we should favor that cannot easily back off over the side who can.

For example - we want to tolerate a black person existing and we also want to tolerate[^1] a racist person being racist. These two toleration are conflicting. The black person can't stop being black - they were born that way - but the racist person can choose to stop being racist. So we favor the black person's existence, and do not tolerate the racist person's racism.

[^1]: You may argue that we should not tolerate racism at all to begin with, to which I'd say the reason we should not tolerate racism is that there are people who get hurt from it, which is what this maxim is all about.

This maxim is not perfect, of course. It does not apply to all cases, and it does leave up to debate the question of who is forced into the conflict and who is doing it out of choice (e.g. - a conservative may claim that LBGT people are willingly choosing to be so while they are forced, by word of God, to hate them). But I still think it's an improvement:

1. It's morally arguable. As long as we don't go into the details, it's easy to defend as a principle.
2. The question of who if forced into the conflict and who is willingly entering it can be discussed more objectively than the question of what should be tolerated and what shouldn't (I'm not saying it's always easy to agree - just that the discussion is more objective)
3. Even in cases where both sides are forced or cases where both sides are willing, looking at it through the lens of this maxim allows to point at the true perpetrators and/or the true victims, instead of arbitrarily picking one side to blindly side with.

The left doesn't even tolerate the left.

Tolerant left? Leftists barely tolerate other Leftists!

The problem I found with the American left this past year as an outsider looking in, is that they all splintered into groups and started seeing the other group on the left as “just as bad as trump”, nobody was “left” enough to be an ally for anyone’s rigid tastes. The left fought among itself for labels, while the conservatives on the right were united.

I understand a lot of it for the younger left had to do with gaza but to anyone else, it’s clear Netanyahu and Musk and other oligarchs planned this out and the American left bought it and let Trump win.

All you can do is unify and strengthen and cut out fascists and fix your country, stop trying to be world police if you can’t even fix yourself.

If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing

~ Malcolm X

Honestly real talk for all my inclusion and belonging folks: we really gotta work on our vocab.

Was the term “tolerance” ever anything but confusing? In my lifetime I’ve only ever heard it used by conservatives dragging out this straw-man. Did “tolerance” once connote open-mindedness, graciousness, charitable judgment, acceptance/inclusion, or anything other than “weary endurance of something unpleasant?” Legit curious.

Similar examples include “consent” (sexual). Why are we pretending its primary non-figurative meaning isn’t legal or contractual when literally trying to say it’s the opposite? It has a strongly passive connotation, to acquiesce to a request, allow an event to occur, or go along with a plan — as in “tacit consent,” “consent form,” “consent to search,” and so forth. So it sounds gross, like “fine I guess you can do sex to me.” I know we tried to fix it with “enthusiastic consent” but seriously has anyone ever filled out a consent form with enthusiasm? What we really mean is active, reciprocal desire. The point is to give someone what they want if what they want is you, not to secure their consent to get what you want from them, so why the fuck do we insist on still using a word that’s in so many ways the opposite of what we mean?

I even think Crenshaw’s identity is confusing, because most people want to think of personal identity as something discovered or self-actualized, but intersectionality’s dependence on lived experience implies that to some extent it’s always something that happens to you. It’s how other people perceive you and the labels they give you that furnish these identities. But that probably sounds like a good thing if wearing those labels helped you bond with others similarly labeled, offering you a community or roots. Otherwise, calling these labels “identities” might sound like letting others define who you are instead of deciding for yourself. Gender identity for example is usually approached as an outward expression of one’s true self which can entirely reject the labels others give. But to ask someone “how do you identify” concerning something like ethnicity or race is not treated the same at all. To an outsider, these theoretical constructs might sound preposterous simply because we insisted on using the wrong words for our ideas, then overloading or bending their definitions to the point that a person needs a graduate seminar to actually parse the intended meaning.

Edit: to be clear, I’m only against the word choices, not the ideas. It’s because it feels like our messaging is hamstrung by insisting on using the wrong words as jargon with wildly different in-group definitions that to outsiders can make us sound inconsistent, confused, or at least difficult to understand. /rant

Fuck tolerance.

See? It's that easy. No paradoxes required.

The whole idea that Tolerance is a Social Contract seems to be what works best: One is Tolerant towards others who are Tolerant and those who are not Tolerant are breaking the Social Contract of Tolerance and thus are not entitled to be the recipients of Tolerance from others.

Tolerance as a Principle doesn't work well exactly because of the Paradox Of Tolerance which is that by Tolerating the Intolerant one is causing there to be less Tolerance since the Intolerant when their actions are tolerated will spread Intolerance (as painfully demonstrated in Present day America, especially with Trump).

Every time I hear or read that phrase, all I can think is "BITCH I NEVER SAID I WAS TOLERANT OF YOUR SHIT"

Tolerating intolerance isn't tolerance. It's bigotry.

We tolerate the shitty uncle who gets drunk and says stupid shit at thanksgiving.

We punch Nazis in the face.

I don’t tolerate maga folks. I just kind of ignore them, and don’t allow them to be a part of my life.

I do have republican and conservative friends. I do not have any maga friends.