(uncountable, obsolete) The ability to endure pain or hardship; endurance. [15th–19th c.]
(uncountable) The ability or practice of tolerating; an acceptance of or patience with the beliefs, opinions or practices of others; a lack of bigotry. [from 18th c.]
(uncountable) The ability of the body (or other organism) to resist the action of a poison, to cope with a dangerous drug or to survive infection by an organism. [from 19th c.]
(countable) The variation or deviation from a standard, especially the maximum permitted variation in an engineering measurement. [from 20th c.]
And as sugar on top, the etymology:
From Middle French tolerance, from Latin tolerantia (“endurance”), from tolerans, present participle of Latin tolerō (“endure”).
So tolearnce isn’t some omniforgiving quality, it’s the quality of “I don’t agree with you, but am prepared to endure up to a reasonable point”. This simple check at what the word means renders the paradox moot as the formulation of the paradox implies tolerance to be an infinite amount of forgiveness when it’s in fact a very limited amount of enduring things. And this limitedness is present in all uses of the word, be it in politics, engineering or medicine.
This is what I was referring to, though I don’t disagree with you.
The problem with most paradoxes is that they’re strawmen.
Let’s look at the Wiktionary definition of Tolerance:
So tolearnce isn’t some omniforgiving quality, it’s the quality of “I don’t agree with you, but am prepared to endure up to a reasonable point”. This simple check at what the word means renders the paradox moot as the formulation of the paradox implies tolerance to be an infinite amount of forgiveness when it’s in fact a very limited amount of enduring things. And this limitedness is present in all uses of the word, be it in politics, engineering or medicine.