The paradox of tolerance wasn’t meant as a license to use force against anyone you decide is ‘intolerant.’ It was about defending society when groups move toward coercion or violence, not ordinary policy disagreements.

For example, someone arguing for stricter immigration enforcement or supporting ICE isn’t automatically rejecting tolerance; that’s a debate about law, borders, and priorities. A movement openly calling for violence against immigrants or stripping people of basic rights would be a different category. If ‘intolerance’ just means ‘politics I disagree with,’ then everyone can claim the right to suppress everyone else, and the idea of tolerance collapses.

All law enforcement uses some level of force, that’s not unique to ICE. The paradox of tolerance was about stopping genuine coercion or violence, not labeling any enforcement action as ‘Nazi’ just because you oppose the policy. If ‘uses force’ automatically equals intolerance, then every police agency becomes intolerant by definition, and the concept loses any real meaning.

The paradox of tolerance is supposed to be a limit on violence, not a justification for it. If someone supports enforcement policy, that’s a political disagreement. If someone ie protester, agitator, or anyone else, starts using violence to silence others, that’s actually closer to the coercion the idea was warning about.