[knome]

The paradox of tolerance specifically states that one must not be tolerant of intolerance. Hence, a paradox.

Tolerance is a social contract of leaving alone others whose ways differ from your own so long as they do the same for you.

One must not tolerate those that call for violence and subjugation of differing groups, which is almost the exact opposite meaning your comment seems to be implying in my reading of it, instead calling for wholly unfiltered speech by whosoever should deem to speak.

Racists and similar hatemongers calling for others to tolerate them while they are screaming for those they disparage to be caste down and out cannot be tolerated in any reasonable forum.

As such, any reasonable forum must ban some facets of free speech.

That we disallow this power for governments is a reasonable limit on the powers of the elected to rule, lest those powers be abused.

[SSilver2k2]

This is probably the best summary / example I have read on how to explain the paradox of tolerance.

Thank you!

[account42]

The problem with this interpretation is of course that it lets you be as intolerant as you want to anyone you decree intolerant. Which is why it is so popular.