Thanks for the clarification! I still don't really see why this is so. Lots of people in lots of countries want a theocracy, and are allowed to say so, but only a tiny number of countries have ended up getting one as a result. (I even think a fair amount of the advocacy in Iran in favor of the Islamic Revolution was probably illegal under Pahlavi, in which case its success isn't even much of a prophecy of what happens if that kind of advocacy is tolerated.)

I guess I don't understand the "any resistance is invalidation of tolerance" and "would lead it to be easily destroyed" part. Is it like this classic Onion article from 2003?

https://politics.theonion.com/aclu-defends-nazis-right-to-bu...

Like if you actively make a point of never opposing people who disagree with you in any way whatsoever, eventually they can take advantage of that in a more harmful or dramatic way?