So you want to call people fascists and nazis while also excluding people whose opinions you don’t like? The irony is downright wild.

You've missed something.

The tolerant want as much tolerance as possible. If the tolerant decide to tolerate the intolerant, then eventually you end up with no tolerance. So to have as much tolerance as possible, the tolerant must tolerate everyone except the intolerant.

But doesn't that mean that the tolerant are no longer tolerant / are now intolerant?

This is the paradox of tolerance.

But it stops being a paradox once you understand that tolerance can be ordered by degrees of tolerance.

I'll demonstrate it with game theory:

• Each game starts off with 5 players (named 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) working on a shared project.
• Players can vote to remove other players from the game.
• The game ends when the game state stops changing.
• Ending with a higher score is better.
• Team A: The percentage of players working on the project is the score. (These are the tolerant)
• Team B: The percentage of players working on the project who are in Team B is the score. (These are the intolerant, they cannot tolerate Team A)

Game 1:

• Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
• Team B contains Players 4 & 5
• Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
• Turn 2: Players 1-3 vote for Player 1 to remain, Players 4-5 vote for Player 1 to leave. Remain vote wins.
• Turn 3: Players 4-5 follow through with threat and leave
• Team A score: 60%
• Team B score: 0%

Game 2:

• Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
• Team B contains Players 4 & 5
• Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
• Turn 2: Players 1-3 vote for Player 1 to remain, Players 4-5 vote for Player 1 to leave. Remain vote wins.
• Turn 3: Players 4-5 withdraw threat
• Team A score: 100%
• Team B score: 40%

Game 3:

• Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
• Team B contains Players 4 & 5
• Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
• Turn 2: Players 2-5 vote and Player 1 is removed.
• Turn 3: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 2 is not removed.
• Turn 4: Players 3-5 vote and Player 2 is removed.
• Turn 5: Players 4-5 vote to remove Player 3.
• Team A score: 0%
• Team B score 100%

Game 4:

• Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
• Team B contains Players 4 & 5
• Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
• Turn 2: Players 1-3 vote for players 4 & 5 to leave, Players 4-5 vote for Player 1 to leave. Players 4-5 removed.
• Team A score: 60%
• Team B score: 0%

Game 5:

• Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
• Team B contains Players 4 & 5
• Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
• Turn 2: Players 1-3 vote for Player 1 to remain, Players 4-5 vote for Player 1 to leave. Remain vote wins.
• Turn 3: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 2 is not removed.
• Turn 4: Players 1-3 vote for Player 2 to remain, Players 4-5 vote for Player 2 to leave. Remain vote wins.
• The same 4 turns repeat, the game hangs
• The game can continue at one of:
  • Game 1 turn 3
  • Game 2 turn 3
  • Game 3 turn 2
  • Game 4 turn 2
• Team A score: 60% + 100% + 0% + 60%, over 4 games averages to: 55%
• Team B score: 0% + 40% + 100% + 0%, over 4 games averages to: 35%

That is the simple version of the game: Player 3 leans tolerant, so they're on the tolerant side.

The other simple version of the game has Player 3 leaning intolerant, but that results in only one path of players 3-5 remove player 1, then player 2, then 4-5 removes 3, then the game is stuck in stalemate since player 5 can't remove player 4 since there is no tiebreaker, or there is only player 5 and the project stalls out.

The complex version of the game has player 1 as the most inclusive and player 5 the most exclusive with player 3 is on neither team and randomly voting with team a, team b, or abstaining from voting. It's too long to fit in a comment here (since there's a lot of games to write out), but you end up with the same verdict as player 3 being on the tolerant side.

Verdict: It is always better to be on the more inclusive team rather than the more exclusive team.

Now back to the current issue at hand.

The "Chuds" (as the original post has called them) are the exclusive team. Their members have stated things like removing non-white people from the UK, removing trans people from projects, shooting Romani people (which would obviously remove them from participating in projects), etc...

The "non-chuds" team are the inclusive team. They want to include as many people as possible (non-whites, trans, Romani, etc...).

When the "Chuds" team tries to remove someone, it is in the best interest for the "non-chuds" team to prevent the person from being removed, even if it leads to the "chuds" breaking away from the project, or if it leads to the "chuds" needing to be removed from the project to stop the stalemate.

The "non-chuds" removing the "chuds" doesn't make them intolerant. It's the option which preserves the most tolerance when the "non-chuds" don't withdraw their demands.

Edit: Formatting