[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.