Paradox of Tolerance

It feels like it works both ways and society that is only allowed to be intolerant to intolerance will get so focused on it that it will gradually expand the definition of what this intolerance is that they are allowed to not tolerate.

The paradox is tolerance is just the paradox of imprecise language. Once you actually define what you mean by the word "tolerance", as in the acts being tolerated and what acts you are prohibited from doing to something being tolerated, it usually sorts itself right out.

For instance, suppose we define "tolerance" for a viewpoint as "not killing people for uttering words expressing that viewpoint" (a relatively weak example of free expression and tolerance for free expression, but necessary for broader concepts of free expression and tolerating expression). If a society is tolerant of intolerance (i.e. does not kill people for expressing the viewpoint that killing people for expressing a viewpoint is okay), then eventually the people with the viewpoint that killing people for expressing a viewpoint is okay will dominate. That is not a logically sound conclusion/paradox at all.

About the only definition of "tolerance" that results in the paradox is: "will follow any command by others" or similar, but that is a fundamentally absurd position that amounts to equating tolerance with literal willing slavery. It is hard to find any reasonable, clear definition of tolerance, whatever you may choose for what you think that word means, that results in a paradox. The paradox of tolerance is just a word game where the other kid says "infinity + 1" to trump you.

There is no paradox when you see tolerance through the lens of a social contract.

When one party breaks the contract, the other party is no longer under any obligation to abide by it either.

An interesting take on the subject: https://www.persuasion.community/p/yes-you-do-have-to-tolera...