This is not the paradox of tolerance. That’s why I suggested reading the article linked by the word ‘here’.
The paradox of tolerance only can only happen in an environment where one side routinely abuses the rule of engagement and gets away with it. A paradoxically tolerant person would be like, “Well…you’re entitled to your opinion that I’m inferior to you because of my skin color, and people less than you should put into concentration camps for our safety…but I disagree.”
The article above denied this had to be the case. If someone believes that I’m sub-human because of my skin color and makes that argument, then it’s perfectly reasonable for me to believe the same of them for the same reason. I don’t actually have to believe this, mind you, but I can argue for policies I want on that basis. So, if someone wants to put me in concentration camps because of my skin color, then I can reasonably argue, on the merits of the stupid argument, that they, too, should be placed in concentration camps to ensure their safety from the riffraff.
As you can see, if people argue for things for stupid reasons, then a lot of stupid things open up. The paradox of tolerance assumes one person is exceptionally aggressive in their stupidity (i.e., intolerant) and the other refrains for some reason.
Fuck that. If someone argues for bad things to happen to other people for bad reasons (racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc), then it’s perfectly reasonable for somebody else to argue that bad things happen to them for those same reasons.