[claudiawerner]

>Tolerance is to live and let live.

This is one reading of tolerance, but there are multiple (as expounded by Popper and Marcuse too, for instance). I don't think considering an idea badly because it's used as fuel is a good thing. A quick counterexample to the idea that tolerance means to allow anything and everything is that if I were to tell you I tolerate your presence, but you begin to make annoying sounds continuously, my tolerance would quickly change to intolerance.

Tolerance is a democratic principle, since it relies on the idea that nobody has an absolute claim on the truth, but as critical theorists as early as the 60s pointed out, this democratic idea depends on an informed populace to distinguish ideas as they are - to that end, in society we don't tolerate some views, such as the teaching of creationism in schools.

A good essay on this is Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance". Regarding your mention of Orwell, Marcuse made another interesting point; nowadays, the contradiction is hidden within the noun itself, rather than "war is peace", the word "freedom" itself, understood in the context of its ideological use by various proponents (particularly on the libertarian right, I've noticed) already contains the contradiction; the idea it represents is contradictory. Similarly with misleading names and terms.

I do not want to live in a society in which tolerance is absolute, and I doubt many people would.

[stcredzero]

I don't think considering an idea badly because it's used as fuel is a good thing.

An idea that demolishes a foundation idea by melding it with its opposite is a very insidiously bad thing.

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

[claudiawerner]

Nobody is claiming that tolerance is equal to intolerance, that would be silly; the claim is that intolerance [of an instance] may be required for tolerance [in society at large], to prosper. What is being tolerated and what is not being tolerated are difference, hence the "contradiction" isn't a contradiction at all. Nothing is melded. The core idea of indiscriminate tolerance (the issues with which I mentioned you haven't seemed to address) is not altered by this new principle; it's entirely possible to be tolerant of everything.

What do you say to the claim that laws (restrictions on absolute freedom) may be required to guarantee freedom? Does this claim demolish the foundation of freedom by melding it with its direct opposite? From this example, your abstract point is pretty poor; this issue with freedom has been picked up since the time of the earliest philosophers, and they really do seem paradoxical.

That's not to say your concrete (specific) point on intolerance is wrong, but your abstract point about melding an idea with its opposite is poorly founded, and doesn't hold up to a dialectical analysis in place of considering the ideas as binary opposites.