Tolerance vs intolerance is a false dichotomy. Our actions can be viewed as points on a 2-dimensional axis between the two. Is showing discomfort with another's overly racist ideas tolerant or intolerant? What about asking questions about why someone made a casual offhand comment? Refusing to participate in a group blackface costume for Halloween? Are these tolerant or intolerant actions?

No one is claiming that it’s not a continuum. Even the Wikipedia summary of the paradox of intolerance refers to societies that are tolerant without limit.

This, to me, is a straw man

The PoI could equally apply to any conspiracy: Shadowy Jewish bank cartels, the gay agenda, prism and the deep state.

The issue at hand is that the evidence is picked at contextual extremes, and then extrapolated.

You need way more verification that the intolerant have the power you think they have; there is v often a silent majority that would step in if things escalated.

Note: the Paradox of Tolerance only applies in a "naive" (first-order) consequentialist framework. In a virtue ethics framework, the answer to "what should be done about intolerant people" is "tolerance" because tolerance is an inherent good regardless of outcomes.

However, I also think to a first approximation, virtue ethics has better consequentialist outcomes than naive consequentialist ethics does.

So I don't have an answer to the PoT; I just don't think it's a slam-dunk argument against tolerance at all. I espouse tolerance first and foremost for the sake of its ideal, and I hold that ideal because I prefer its generalized outcomes.

In other words, I can't help but notice that the Paradox of Tolerance is largely used as a tool to justify plain intolerance.

Eh, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with anyone suggesting that Germany banning Nazis wasn't a good idea.

Eh, I actually think Germany banning Nazis was a good idea in hindsight, but there's some special context there. :P Specifically, looking at Germany, I don't think it's a Paradox of Tolerance situation because we've seen over decades of experience that the Nazi ban is not being broadened or overapplied. And there's no need for it, because the actual Nazis remarkably seem to be unable to help themselves, even given the very specific and limited ban we're running. So I'm going to explicitly carve out an exception for the Nazi ban in my otherwise liberal ideology - on consequentialist grounds, since as far as free speech restrictions go this one seems to be operating productively even within its sharply curtailed limits. In other words, it selects Nazis and approximately nobody else. If more limitations of free speech had the character of §86, I'd be a lot more on board with the concept.

In other words, the Nazi ban is one case where the dialog went like this:

"Come on, this is pointless, they can just use other symbols and dogwhistles. You'll fall into an escalating spiral of swatting down new Nazi symbols, negatively affecting pretty much everyone but Nazis."

"Yeah but look, we won't fall into an escalating spiral of free speech restrictions. Because they won't change their symbols, ever."

And they were right. I don't entirely understand why, but clearly they were right. My standing theory is that Nazis are either really dumb or in some sort of symbiotic relation with the constitutional protection office where going to jail is actually their goal. Works for me.

Tl;dr: my rule-consequentialist ethics don't have a problem with "liberalism, except where Nazi paraphernalia and holocaust denial", since those modifications have clearly demonstrated their worth and limited character.

> it selects Nazis and approximately nobody else

You are seriously suggesting that "nobody else" is ever going to attempt what the Nazis did, ever? We've got billions of years until the sun makes Earth uninhabitable. History clearly shows us these things are cyclical. Also, your point about symbols is wrong, they are constantly looking for new dogwhistles and using them.

It seems like you're either lost in the weeds or have some obtuse agenda. This 'intellectual' sophistry is meaningless to 99% of your fellow humans. I don't see how anything you've said negates the paradox of tolerance-- there is a line to be drawn or fascists win, it's that simple to me and I cannot imagine an argument that would convince me otherwise.