I think the paradox of tolerance has been interpreted by many on the left in a way that flatters them and is convenient to their political ends. Forces that actually threaten democracy and tolerance are frequently ignored or swept under the rug, while the left's political opponents are demonized as not being tolerant enough to participate in democracy so they can be summarily dismissed.

IMHO this tactic is one of the drivers in the falling trust in institutions that we see across the western world. You can't simply dismiss your opposition as not tolerant enough as a way of winning a political argument.

I agree, a predicate of non-tolerance or non-democraticness should be in the conclusion of an argument, not in it's assertion or justification.