I think the paradox of tolerance seems to be wildly misunderstood by the left

if a person cannot be tolerant of the intolerant, then they’re not a tolerant person; hence this “paradox” as interpreted by leftists, seems to advocate for shades of intolerance then, and against a tolerant society existing

yet, tolerance does not imply agreement, nor pacifism. Someone is still free to argue against someone with a view they disagree with, or if such a person uses violence against the person wrongly, they don’t have to “tolerate” the violence (although they are free to do so if that would be prudent) but are able to defend themselves with lawful self-defense

I suppose the word “tolerance” is probably ambiguous in this “paradox”

Additionally, the predominant American attitude seemed to be that such “intolerance” could be voluntarily argued against and overcome; it is legal to advocate for violent ideologies like Nazism or Communism alike, and usually such people were ignored or problems for example with their economics views were brought up and most people voluntarily agreed that such ideologies were not ideal.

So as I understand it, the “paradox of tolerance” is not really a justification for or argument for a necessity of “not tolerating the intolerant”