Kind of reminds me of something i read recently about the more tolerant you become, the less your brain may function or else you risk offending. That largely speaking the social media censorship is not about influencing politics but rather trying not to offend. The far left and far right agree with the paradox for the opposite reason.

In terms of the paradox... it's not a paradox at all. You have to consider the contemporary context of the assertion. 1945 was post-ww2 and tolerating the lutherans early on eventually evolved to something terrible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

At what point in your society do you no longer tolerate their intolerance and potentially stop a holocaust? If you do it too soon, you're going to be rife with censoring your political opponents and you have the new problem that they still overthrow your government. Every protest you end up in great fear of imminent revolution. If you do it too late, they are already in power.

This is the challenge and also why Jordan Peterson says you would have been a nazi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vknhe2CbvmI

The problem. Lutheran antisemitism had built up in germany over hundreds of years. Hitler was in party leadership for around 10 years before forming government. If Otto Wels had done anything to stop intolerance he would have only delayed the inevitable.

Coming back to the paradox, what exactly is the paradox? Being purely tolerant isn't in the books. No society is tolerant of murders or pedos. Being a free speech absolutist doesn't actually allow slander or fighting words. There are limits. So nobody is actually 'too tolerant without limit'. The paradox is null and void really.

Do we attack religion perhaps instead? Obviously Lutheranism is the source of the nazis. Hitler basically orchestrated Luther's plan.

If you read: http://bactra.org/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html

But this isn't religion, Dawkins was misunderstood and later coined the word 'memes' which have nothing to do with religion. Psychology or social sciences found out about this later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness

This is actively being studied right now. Nobody understands it, it seems to have some association with laughter. It's heavily influencing Covid responses and people freaking out irrationally over covid.

Did you know you can take a small community which statistically might be above the average on suicides. You can setup a suicide hotline and nothing will change. It doesn't actually reduce anything, nobody really calls. So you advertise the suicide hotline.

What do you expect happens? You're helping people right? Wrong.. suicides will climb like wildfire. The advertising for a suicide hotlines ends up getting more people to commit suicide than before there was the hotline... nobody truly understands it.

We are starting to see it with other tolerance issues. Antiracism efforts are actively creating racism more than they solve. So we are being intolerant of intolerance, actively trying to train people to not be racist and in turn creating more racism than there was before. In fact, saying not to say the N word is what gives the word it's power. If everyone simply stopped caring if someone says the N word or not. The word would die an immediate death. Flipside, if we made laws to say Cracker is now illegal to say. You would see a tremendous increase in using the word.

The "woke mind virus" is something that isn't fake. Elon musk isn't wrong about it despite significant criticism. But he's understanding there's a psychogenic impact going on. We can't target intolerance, but it's not that we must be tolerant of intolerance. Daryl Davis is a very smart guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw he understands the paradox of tolerance better than anyone else.