the point of the argument is that intolerance necessarily gives birth to more intolerance, and never more tolerance. this is true. intolerance only breeds intolerance. the more intolerance, the more harm. whether psychological or violent, intolerance leads to harm. so we know intolerance creates more intolerance, and intolerance leads to harm. then we have to pick from other philosophical models, in this case i'll go with the social contract: the social contract tells us that if i bring harm to you, i break the contract that protects me. you harming me in response is responding to someone who broke the social contract, and is no longer protected by it. i'm getting what i asked for. i'm the one who broke the contract. the social contract is there for social order. without it, all forms of harm become some nebulous whatever and drown in pseudo bullshit about relativity, and remain not exactly acceptable but also not legally punishable. this is where the paradox of tolerance kicks in. you're breaking the social contract, creating intolerance, causing harm. that's not protected. the government can't constitutionally punish ~abstract advocacy~ of force or law violation, but nazism isn't abstract. nazism is inherently a call to hate and eventually violence. it's an ideology based off of harm and only seeks intolerance. nazis, commies, klan members, islamic extremistsyou can live in america, but spreading your ideology and hate isn't protected. it's fine in your home and in your head where it can't harm anyone else. that's it. that's your only real protection. you're a clear and present danger, which isn't covered under free speech. so since you inherently break the social contract and advocate harm, whatever harm comes your way is not only deserved, but asked for. nobody has to tolerate you, ever.
United States