the Paradox of Tolerance is a fallacy. A tolerant society allows (tolerates) non-coercive actions, and forbids coercive ones (violence, direct threats of violence, fraud).
"The Paradox of Tolerance" is a bad excuse used to label a non-coercive action as "intolerant" (like having the wrong opinions) to justify using coercive action (violence) to be intolerant toward it, to supposedly protect tolerance from intolerance.
The two fatal problems with the concept:
1) what is intolerant is subjective, allowing anyone at anytime to be labeled intolerant.
2) it escalates from non-violence to violence, and the most intolerant one wins in a "might makes right" kind of way.
It's as fucked up of a concept as "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". It's an axiom, that if followed by all, would result in the most intolerant society possible.