Possible solution to the "paradox of tolerance", by making a distinction between what I call fractal tolerance and non-fractal tolerance. Non-fractal tolerance is the tolerance towards a wide range of behaviors - generally with a simple limit such as "don't harm others", a type of morality that is roughly similar to Wicca/Liberalism/Libertarianism. Fractal tolerance is the tolerance only towards behavior and people that are themselves fractally tolerant. Fractally tolerant people are intolerant towards any behavior or person who is not fractally tolerant (including those who are non-fractally tolerant). Fractally tolerant people are a lot more intolerant than non-fractally tolerant people.

In mainstream formulations, the people who deem themselves "intolerant of intolerance" should, to remain consistent, hate themselves, or at the very least hold themselves as inferior to people who are, in my formulation, non-fractally tolerant. Such behavior would be, in fact, paradoxical, impossible to adhere to.

In my formulation, fractally tolerant people do not tolerate non-fractally tolerant people, and non-fractally tolerant people do tolerate fractally tolerant people (as long as the simple limit - such as 'do not harm others' - is not transgressed). Fractally tolerant people are highly intolerant, but at least, the paradox does not arise, because the definition of 'fractally tolerant' does not say that they are 'intolerant of intolerance', but rather, 'intolerant of anything outside of fractal tolerance", i.e. they are intolerant towards anyone who is not fractally tolerant, and therefore they do not tolerate non-fractal forms of tolerance.

Ideas (I may develop them some more in the future):

Total tolerance (apathy?): tolerating everything
Liberal/libertarian/wiccan/etc. tolerance: tolerating what doesn't cause harm to anyone, not tolerating what causes harm
1-perfective fractal tolerance (self-hating version): tolerating tolerance but not tolerating intolerance (including one's own), the corollary is that one does not tolerate oneself.
1-perfective fractal tolerance (non-self-hating version): same as above but making an ad-hoc exception to oneself. One's own intolerance is tolerated.
2-perfective fractal tolerance (self-hating version): tolerating tolerance except tolerance towards intolerance, which is not tolerated (tolerance towards tolerance towards intolerance is tolerated, however). Corollary: one does not tolerate oneself. Every of this approach has a self-hating and non-self-hating version, so I won't repeat it.
3-perfective fractal tolerance: one does not tolerate: intolerance, tolerance towards intolerance, tolerance towards tolerance towards intolerance. One can tolerate tolerance towards tolerance towards tolerance towards intolerance and further.
4-perfective fractal tolerance: well, the approach goes on indefinitely
infinite-perfective fractal tolerance: this is what I'm talking about in this page. Intolerance is not tolerated, as well as "tolerance towards intolerance", "tolerance towards tolerance towards intolerance", and anything down that sequence, infinitely. What is tolerated in infinite-perfective fractal tolerance then, is only the infinite-perfective fractal tolerance itself.

Circular vs linear line of tolerance/intolerance: (P1 is person 1, P2 is person 2 and so on)

Example of linear: P1 tolerates P2, who tolerates P3, who tolerates P4, who does not tolerate P5
Example of circular: P1 tolerates P2, who tolerates P3, who tolerates P4, who does not tolerate P1
According to fractal tolerance, in the linear line of tolerance/intolerance, P3 should not tolerate P4, because s/he does not tolerate P5. Tolerating P4 is an act of "tolerating intolerance" from P3. Therefore, P3 should not be tolerated either. Therefore, P2 is doing an act of "tolerating the toleration of intolerance" by tolerating P3, and therefore P2 should not be tolerated either, and neither should P1 (since s/he tolerates P2). The only one who is possibly not in the wrong according to fractal tolerance is P5. Possibly.
In the second example (the circular one), it is not clear who is in the wrong, because... P4 does not tolerate P1. Now, let's see if it's a good thing for P4 to not tolerate P1. P1 tolerates P2, who tolerates P3, who tolerates P4, who does not tolerate P1. P3 is tolerating intolerance... but is tolerating a "valid" intolerance tolerated (or even required) by fractal tolerance? That can be ambiguous. Is P4's intolerance valid? Is it a good thing to not tolerate P1? After all, P1 is tolerating P2 who is tolerating P3 who is tolerating P4 (an intolerant person)... so, in theory, P1 should not be tolerated, which is exactly what P4 is doing (and so, P4's intolerance is required by fractal tolerance... but in that case, P1 is not doing anything wrong according to fractal tolerance, since the intolerance that is last on the line is valid/required, and so P4 has no right to not tolerate P1... and so on... it's a paradox!)... hmm... I'll have to work on this mathematically, because this is an interesting paradox, lol.

Possible idea: three versions of the fractal tolerance:

Tolerating a "valid" intolerance is:
1: Tolerated/allowed
2: Required
3: Forbidden (this necessarily means one must not tolerate oneself... or anyone for that matter, since nobody can behave in a tolerable way according to this approach, it would be logically impossible)