ID: A scene from Legally Blonde of a conversation between Warner and Elle in the corridor at Harvard, in 4 panels:
-
Warner asks “What happened to the tolerant left?”
-
Elle replies, smiling “Who said we were tolerant?”
-
Warner continues “I thought you were supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs!”
-
Elle looks confused “Why would we tolerate bigotry, inequity, or oppression?”
Tolerance by itself already does not tolerate harming non-consenting adults, quite independently of the agressor being an intolerant or not.
Further, violent intolerance is already covered by the rules against violence in general (there is a case to be made about the punishment for intolerant violence being greater than for similar violence which is not intolerant, but I’m not going into that here).
I was only talking about personal acts in the framework of non-violence, for example speaking out or not against non-violent displays of intolerance, allowing the intolerant to use a space you control to spread their intolerance in a non-violent way and so on.
So yeah, as soon as Force (be it via a social structure for the exercise of Force such as the Law or outside such structures) is considered against non-violent displays of intolerance, merelly Tolerance as a Social Contract does not suffice to cover it since the initiation of violence against other human beings who are not being violent comes with its own rules of morality.
That clears it up, and I missed it earlier: we appear to have a merely verbal dispute over the word tolerance.
You mentioned speaking out against the objectionable (an act lacking force) as an instance of not tolerating it. This is not the notion of tolerance defined in the wikipedia article or SEP article that discussions of the paradox go by. Tolerance is permitting ideas, action, practices one considers wrong yet not worthy of prohibition or constraint. Typical formulations of the concept consist of 3 components:
Not tolerating something—not permitting it—implies prohibiting or constraining it somehow. Wherever someone could express/do/be something intolerable that usually means force to prevent/limit them from doing so. Acts (such as speaking out, not sharing your things) that don’t prohibit or constrain the objectionable still permit & therefore tolerate it.
Tolerance has a number of paradoxes identified in the SEP, and the paradox in discussion is more precisely called the paradox of drawing the limits. By permitting the objectionable & merely objecting, it’s still tolerated & the paradox of drawing the limits isn’t really an issue here.
As you point out, general rules (on harm, violence, force, etc) mostly resolve these paradoxes without special embellishment needed.