We all should.

I'm generally very "pacifist" (not that this is violence, but I don't like attacking people in any sense of the word) and "live-and-let-live" on principle, but I also follow the "reverse golden rule" - i.e. I assume others are following the golden rule. Therefore:

Bullies deserve to be bullied (and, yes, let's call out this behaviour by what it is - bullying).

In most cases the right thing to do is to ignore the intolerant. They benefit from a divided society with lots of hate, the less hate the less power the intolerant instigators have. Sometimes you need to put them into prison to protect others, but as Popper said we should leave that option only as a last resort since ultimately intolerance breeds more intolerance so it isn't a good way to create a tolerant society.

Is there a paradox in 'intolerance'? Or do you mean the 'paradox of tolerance'?

I do not.

The Paradox of Intolerance is expecting that you get to be intolerant of others while not expecting others to be intolerant of you.

Ah yes, cancel those who want to cancel the intolerant.

It does help to think of tolerance as a peace treaty.

Don't you mean, “Cancel those who want to cancel the tolerant.”

The post to which you responded said, “Only cancel the cancellors.”

Ah yes, I misread the parent as desiring to cancel the people demanding cancellation of the intolerant.

Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies discussed this problem.