Either you commit to a society that respects people as people regardless of their ethnicity, religion or sexual or gender identity (so long as they don't limit the freedoms of others), or you don't. I wouldn't call that an arbitrary line. If your views cross that line, I will not tolerate them.

The local neonazis held a "book club" at a public library here once (a publicity stunt because they knew it would make a lot of people angry). One liberal writer decided to go there to participate and to talk to them. She announced this beforehand and an article was published in the biggest newspaper in the country. It must've come as quite a surprise to her and all the idiots cheering her on for her tolerance, when she changed no minds and only contributed to the publicity stunt while also lending some of her credibility to them. Tolerating their views only gives them more legitimacy as a part of the political discourse.

When I see neonazis marching on the street here, I go shout obscenities at them to make sure they as a group feel unwelcome. The last time that one of them came up to me asking if I had a problem, I tried to talk some sense into him and I think I succeeded at least to an extent. Because a one on one conversation detached from the wider context is the only possible avenue to do so, when the us vs. them tribalism is at least somewhat removed and people can actually see each other instead of just a member of the opposing tribe. No cameras or ulterior motives, no incentive to keep up appearances as the best little loyal member in our team. That's how I think we should treat intolerance.

Im not required to be tolerant of anyone. I choose to accept those who dont cause a problem for society. The whole idea of "tolerance" and political civility is laughable. If youre a piece of shit, fuck you.

The only paradox at play here is you trying to use logic to destroy the application of logic.

(You're failing, btw)