Your post here, like many of your others, will require some digestion!
The first thing that comes to my mind is the pseudo-paradox of tolerance and intolerance. (I say "pseudo-" because I think this argument is actually not very helpful, though I hear it all the time.)
I think of people who esteem and celebrate tolerance between people of other faiths, cultures, sexual/gender identities, etc. And there are others who make sharp distinctions between these differences, even intolerant distinctions that are hurtful to others. And so those that lift up tolerance become frustrated against this intolerance and speak out against it. The response I hear back from the intolerant is: "See, you are intolerant, too! You are intolerant of us!" in other words, the tolerant is intolerant of intolerance.
Sorry, I my reasoning may be a bit convoluted. Lol.
My point is that yes, much like love/hate, tolerance can't exist without intolerance. The tolerant MUST be intolerant of intolerance.
Yes, that's correct!
My article for some reason gives off 'bad vibes' that make people think of absolutisms and intolerances! (Maybe the 'Nazi' sign has something to do with it?! :P) Those may be part of the picture, for sure, because my theory after all explains outright wars as well. But the overarching point is that it's impossible to hold a value without it having a 'negative effect' or 'shadow image' somewhere else, be it lighter affairs like 'hating' Pseudocercospora fijiensis because I 'love' eating bananas, or disliking color blindness because I like colors, or darker matters like being intolerant toward the intolerant and whatever that intolerance might lead to. And I expressed this logical point by saying that you can't 'love' without 'hating'. Having values is a necessary correlate of being conscious, and so opposing the 'enemy' of those values is also a necessary correlate.