@razano I see your point, what I mean is: you don't ignore the "Issue"; you ignore those who are intolerant. Hence, preventing passiveness; without risking "the intolerant becoming stronger". Focus on the big picture instead of the tiny imbeciles.

I actually think that the boundaries of tolerance should be clearly specified by a law that is driven and decided by all of the society (practically speaking, it should be the majority of the society.) Leaving tolerance to subjective interpretation is like openning a can of worms. As an example, there could be a clear law that forces business owners to tolerate (or rather ignore) religion, sex, and ethnicity when it comes to employment. Equally as well, a certain society might choose not to tolerate certain behaviors. But in any case, the point is that things that must be tolerated need to be clearly defined so that poeple don't just take matters into their hands which will for sure lead to chaos if it happens.

i think that there were lots of people who tolerated the activities of the Nazis in Germany or those who saw the Whites segregating South Africa. This tolerance lead people to be uncritical and unquestioning of events taking place around them. And when they attempted to resist and organize and affect change it was too late: years of violence and apartheid and much more violence as a result. 

i believe we should appreciate and enjoy difference, but i also believe that we should be critical of others who are violent and abusive to others- if we were critical then we will not have to face the question of tolerating the intolerance. We need to keep ourselves and others in check, demand that we keep each other accountable for our and others' actions.

We need to be criticle not tolerant.

Maybe not tolerate, but ignore. That is if you think that you can't tolerate their intolerance...

I guess 'No tolerance for your intolerance' should work to solve the paradox. I think you believe in being proactively but also reciprocally tolerant. However, maybe it's not practical nor predictable yet when it comes to actual behavior in real life. How would I, as the receiving party of your tolerance, know the things you don't tolerate? Will you annouce it before hand? Or should I guess based on how much I know you?

I'm actually extending this post to cover the question of: How can a tolerant society be established? I do have an idea about an answer but it would be interesting to know what people think (assuming there's an interest in building a tolerant society.)

I think this is a philosophical/logical paradox.

If you decide not to tolerate 'something' this will make you intolerant (or not 100% tolerant). In this case of yours, you're intolerant when it comes to intolerance. So, to solve the paradox, you have to predefine the list of things that you can't tolerate. So, instead of saying "I'm a tolerant person," one should say "I'm a tolerant person except when it comes to ..." I think that's the only way for establishing credibility as being 'conditionally' tolerant, but it also makes your tolerance subjective (since other people might come up with their own lists of exceptions). This means that your flavor of tolerance will be difficult to scale and be applied to the large masses.Things get even worse when you try to define the boundaries of 'intolerance' you can't tolerate. This all boils down to how challenging it is to establish a 'tolerant' society.

A good example of the paradox is freedom of press in some countries where the government can tolerate any article or opinion except when it comes to ridiculing religion.

This reminds me of the slogan: Fight For Peace.