but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”

The Civil War was caused by people being intolerant of each other's ideas. If the South had actually listened to the North, and stopped slavery, then that war would not have happened.

Plus the concept we're discussing is about free speech, if physical harm or violence is done then that's a different matter, and what was done to slaves is definitely something worth fighting for, to save them from that fate.

But Slavery was a boiling point from the founding of the country, where they argued about including that or not in the Bill of Rights, and on forward to the Cival War times.

The Civil Rights Movement was resolved mostly through nonviolent protesting, and the intolerant lost because the tolerant were allowed to speak. If the government had branded the Civil Rights people as being intolerant ( again, who decides who's being intolerant) would we have our civil rights today? I don't think so.

And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant.

Yes, it does, or else everyone becomes intolerant of everyone else, no one speaks to no one, and violence begets violence.

100% of people will not agree on what's intolerant, and those who wish to silence others will use the "you're intolerant" excuse as a weapon against them, so it must not be allowed to happen.

America's worked fine so far on tolerance. It's one of the founding bedrocks of our nation, and society.

As a citizen you have a responsibility to listen to your fellow citizens, even if you don't agree with what they're saying. Feel free to tell them back in no uncertain terms why they're wrong, but don't try to silence them, and their ideas won't gain traction, and they will not gain followers.

The center will not hold, if we're trying to silence each other.