I'd argue it's not a paradox because it relies on two different definitions of tolerance.

• Tolerance 1: Intolerant opinions should be allowed to exist without criminal punishment.
• Tolerance 2: Everyone should treat intolerant opinions like other opinions for the purposes of platforming, how you feel about the speaker, etc.

Tolerance 1 is basically the kind of free speech principles adopted by most democratic societies and is probably necessary for such societies to remain free. Tolerance 2 is just silly. If you're in a forum specifically for debating deplorable opinions, fine. But there's no reason that a politics forum needs to cater to deplorable opinions.

Sorry, tone doesn't come across well. I can't tell if you're trying to correct me on a point, because I agree with you.

"Paradox" doesn't mean it's impossible to resolve. Mathematical paradoxes, such as Gabriel's Horn (a horn that takes up finite volume, yet you would not be able to paint it) or the Banach–Tarski paradox (where you can take a sphere, break it apart, and reassemble it into two spheres identical to the original), do have resolutions. They're just not obvious and can be hard to get your head around.

The original Greek word directly translates to "against belief", and basically means something unexpected. It doesn't mean it's logically contradictory, just that it might seem to.

So yes, the Paradox of Tolerance is a paradox. It's not obvious to all people what the resolution is, but explaining it as a peace treaty rather than an unchangeable moral imperative tends to work.