That's actually the logical conclusion of "no tolerance for intolerance". Actual intolerance will re-emerge while using that as a slogan.
I honestly don't see any other conclusion while divisive identity politics is the culture. Every election and debate is just subtext for making sure your people are in power to protect your people.
It's a paradox. The point is that tolerance cannot be limitless. That doesn't mean that intolerance won't prevail, it just means that those who strive for tolerance need not achieve perfection.
There will forever be a balance to be struck, and it's natural to have disagreements about it.
Let me rephrase. Assuming the tolerance maximizers are completely successful, the next wave of ugly intolerance will be wrapped in a veneer of "no tolerance for intolerance".
I think the thing to strive for is a more perfect due process. I'm concerned people are instead looking for a more perfect way to label and shun transgressors. And they use hate and fear of intolerance as a key justification.
So how do we stop that? Or, rather, why haven't we had any luck so far?
I think the only answer is one which leaves everyone unsatisfied: Some ideas will be treated as transgressions; not all transgressions will be punished.
Identity politics is all the rage now, but i do believe the libertarians found the way out of this paradox. Its the use of force and coercion that draws a clear line on what kind of intolerance is intolerable.
A clear but ultimately arbitrary line, and to boot one where you've sort of shoehorned all the hard work into the definition of 'coercion' (or 'violence' depending on your brand of libertarianism).
