That sentiment is nice and all, but considering that a nontrivial percentage of conservatives literally want to murder me for my gender identity, I'm not going to treat those people the way I would want to be treated

You just used different words to describe exactly the same thing as the OP.

If 9 people are dining at a table with 1 Nazi, how many Nazis are sitting at the table?

it has no solution or clever workarounds it’s just what it is.

There is, and in mathematics we'd define it as Closure. We define a set such that operations on members of the set will always reproduce new members of the set. The problem with applying this logic to a sociological environment is that - in practice - what we're doing is defining "personhood" as membership in the closed "tolerant" set. Dehumanizing anyone outside the tolerant group is not - I suspect - what the OP was hoping to achieve.

That gets us to the "trivial" solution to the paradox of tolerance, which is to kill everyone. Alternatively, to kill everyone except yourself or to kill everyone who isn't in your tolerance set. Viola! Everyone can express perfect tolerance because the only people alive are the folks who share that same sense of perfect tolerance. We might call this a "Final Solution" to the problem of tolerance.

But like many strictly logical and mathematical approaches to resolving social contradictions, it isn't in any way practical or particularly ethical. It is a brute force approach to solving what is, at its heart, a problem of interpersonal perception, accrued bias, and political manipulation.

The real problem of intolerance comes down to the old Dunbar's Number, the upper limit that human brains can process additional individuals as people worthy of empathy. This is a biological limit, not a logical one. And it produces a whole host of knock-on effects that the simple logical paradox doesn't engage with.

This all makes sense when you remember that the underlying topic here is bigotry. Ergo, tolerance is defined in those terms. Not in the more general terms.

The right uses the "paradox of tolerance" to hide what this is ultimately about, a common tactic.

It isn't about tolerating all ideas. It is about tolerating groups of people different from yourself.

Put another way, if society has a rule "don't be a bigot" and then someone is a bigot and gets in trouble, is society bigoted against bigots? No. Of course not. Thinking that would be asinine. Society is enforcing rules against bigotry.

We get muddy when we move from "physical violence" to "the threat of physical violence". It runs us into the "I'm not touching you" game on one end and Nextdoor paranoia on the other.

Is someone tolerant if they come right up to the line of what defines tolerance and acts like an asshole within the strict bounds of the law? Is someone intolerant when they violate (often unwittingly) some local rule of decorum or social taboo? Is someone intolerant if they are startled into a panic? What if they conspire to sow panic without actually getting their hands dirty inflicting harm? If we're the victim of violence from an unknown source, what then? If we're the victim of violence that we falsely attribute, are we intolerant? Is the falsely accused subject now flagged as intolerant?

The people talking about a paradox want to get credit for “tolerating” just the people they don’t mind having around, but you have to tolerate the people you hate, the people you think are a threat to you. Otherwise you’re not tolerant.

More broadly, how do you tolerate someone or something you don't know or understand? How do you deal with perception bias?

I'm reminded of growing up in the 90s and having people freak out over "loud rap music". The media bias against young black men and their taste in music is very clearly an example of intolerance. But the dialogue of the era framed playing this music (particularly the edgy stuff like NWA or Biggy) as itself an act of intolerance.

How do you square that contradiction? Who gets to adjudicate the offender and the offended? What gets defined as tolerable?

OP's image doesn't really set that out.

Yea, all it took was not paying your taxes.

Don't pay your share, no protection of the law, seems pretty simple.

I wish it were an option nowadays, honestly. I'd make that bet in a heartbeat. Statistically id be so much safer I could make a case for my life insurance rates to drop. Statistically I am at my highest chance of death in the presence of a police officer, whether they're in the area because of me or not, so even as a bystander. If I could cut that cord, it's a no brainer. Also my car is getting 20 extra batteries dropped in it wired up in series for parking and pumping 240vdc to every metal part of the chassis. And my property will have a dozen armed sentry's that will fire on anything that moves unless you got the optics for it to sense friendly, which I'll just have implanted inconspicuously into a tattoo.

Don’t like to bash on teachers, but I have to agree.