This is what the paradox of tolerance is all about. Extending tolerance to those who are intolerant of others only serves to enable the rise and eventual dominance of intolerance, thus undermining the original principle. The only way to combat this is (ironically) to be intolerant of such behaviour on both a cultural and systemic level.
There is no paradox once you realize that it is not a law, but a social contract.
Those that are intolerant remove themselves from the social contract, and are no longer protected by it. This then allows them to be no longer tolerated by the tolerant, preserving that contract for those who obey it.
This is what the paradox of tolerance is all about. Extending tolerance to those who are intolerant of others only serves to enable the rise and eventual dominance of intolerance, thus undermining the original principle. The only way to combat this is (ironically) to be intolerant of such behaviour on both a cultural and systemic level.
There is no paradox once you realize that it is not a law, but a social contract.
Those that are intolerant remove themselves from the social contract, and are no longer protected by it. This then allows them to be no longer tolerated by the tolerant, preserving that contract for those who obey it.
Yeah, honestly when viewed this (the correct) way it becomes ridiculous to call it a paradox at all.