You present tolerance as binary: you are tolerant or you are intolerant. There are degrees of tolerance. If you wish to foster a more tolerant society, you can refuse to tolerate the least tolerant people and thereby make the net level of tolerance in the society higher. Basically, you ban the bigots. Is this bigotry against bigots? No, actually, because bigotry is holding an unjustified negative opinion against someone and this would be a justified opinion, but setting that aside, it would result in less bigotry.
And tolerating people when they behave and not tolerating them otherwise is different from not tolerating people because of innocuous characteristics which are outside their control, like their skin color, their gender, or their place of birth. You can choose not to abuse the disabled and thereby make yourself less bigoted. You can't choose not to be disabled.
Imagine two societies that have ten kinds of ideologies in them. In each society, one ideology rules.
One society will never give people like Lenin the time of day, but people of most other creeds are free to speak and act how they wish to.
In another, only people like Lenin will be approved, and a couple others tolerated grudgingly.
The first is easily much more free than the second, and I don't think you'd find a 100% free society pretty much anywhere, because even though the Paradox of Tolerance is endlessly abused, actually letting Lenin go about being Lenin is a really bad idea.
The issue is not necessarily in the argument, it's that it's wielded primarily by wokelets and other censorship-happy people in the present day, and their intolerance is not defined and narrow at all: their tolerance chart looks a lot more like Lenin's one than the anti-Lenin society's. When these people speak of tolerance, they speak of adherence with their own program since their own program is ostensibly a "tolerant" one.
The woke are, of course, tolerant the same way North Korea is democratic and the Berlin Wall was an "anti-Fascist protection rampart". "Bigot" just means "not on board with the ideological program" and is pretty expansive in definition. Lenin.
> So it all boils down to "but I am right, trust me, my bigotry is totally justified"
Are you suggesting here that bigotry against Nazis is not justified? Or if not then what argument are you making? What do you hope to achieve with it? Nazis will always argue freedom of expression and make the argument you are making while it benefits them. They were democratically elected after all. But this doesn't mean they actually believe them. It's going to get thrown out the window the moment they are put in a position of power. Good on you for supporting that I guess?
> Are you suggesting here that bigotry against Nazis is not justified?
What exactly do you expect me to answer here?
If I say no, I created kind of an ex falso quodlibet situation, a contradiction (from some points of view)
If I say yes, I am labeled as a Nazi, because what else could I be?
This technique didn't work in ancient Rome, it doesn't now.
I never was a Nazi, nor will I ever be one. I can sleep well saying that not once in my life have I felt superior to anyone because my skin color is white or because I am male. The thought simply never occurred to me (apart from analyzing the existence of such thoughts in others)
But, yes, I want to reach out to Nazis, because the majority of them are "lost souls" (no, I am not religious by any means) and not the hardcore people that really know what they are doing.
> Good on you for supporting that I guess?
See, ad hominems also don't work on me. (They may work on bystanders though)
The definition of tolerating includes viewpoints that are not your own.
Otherwise everyone in existence would be tolerant