But that’s how the “contract” explanation “solves” the paradox.
Nobody is inherently tolerant. I’m just tolerant towards you because our social contract ensures mutual tolerance.
One “clause” of the contract is however that I don’t have to be tolerant towards you if you breach the contract with anyone else.
Or in other words, if I see you being intolerant, I have the right to be intolerant towards you, too.
Whether I’m “obliged” to be intolerant towards you is another question, but you could construe it as another “clause” of the social contract.
But that’s how the “contract” explanation “solves” the paradox. Nobody is inherently tolerant. I’m just tolerant towards you because our social contract ensures mutual tolerance. One “clause” of the contract is however that I don’t have to be tolerant towards you if you breach the contract with anyone else. Or in other words, if I see you being intolerant, I have the right to be intolerant towards you, too. Whether I’m “obliged” to be intolerant towards you is another question, but you could construe it as another “clause” of the social contract.
The paradox is about being “obliged” to be intolerant to protect (and maximize) the tolerance.
If you don’t actively act against intolerance, you allow the intolerance to exist, allowing intolerance will result in more intolerance.