I still fail to understand what your issue is with the paradox? I can’t see why it would be easier or more effective to explain a social construct than a paradox. It differs from other reciprocal social constructs, such as trust for example, because a) it’s the lack of the commodity itself (tolerance) which dictates whether it should be granted and b) it’s not global, i.e. you can remain tolerant of a bigot’s queerness while not tolerating their hatred. I think a) makes it a paradox, which sets it apart from other social constructs. So why not call it a paradox? I’m still not getting it.