That's the thing -- if one gets top both define what "intolerant" means AND banish those deemed intolerant, that's a moral hazard right there. Even if those doi

That's the thing -- if one gets top both define what "intolerant" means AND banish those deemed intolerant, that's a moral hazard right there. Even if those doing the judging sincerely believe that their opponents truly are intolerant. And as an example, "Paradox of Tolerance" was widely used to justify firing Damore (e.g. Zunger's criticism of the memo just about boiled down to "he's intolerant and bad, because he's bad and intolerant, and us, the tolerant and good people should punch him in the kisser". Even though whatever problems there are with the memo, one has to go on a hunt for something, anything to be offended, to find intolerance as a visible problem with it. But if you scream about the paradox loud enough, it (almost) makes you look like you're in the right... NB: not expressing any opinions on memo's correctness.