This is awfully hyperbolic, I cannot take it seriously because it comes across as an indictment of tolerance and an endorsement of intolerance as a moral imperative. Granted, I'm sure the implication is that it would be a 'righteous' kind of intolerance, but it is rooted in absolutism nonetheless.
It's a very simple concept, described by Karl Popper in a single straightforward paragraph, commonly referred to as the Paradox of Tolerance. It's one of those lessons that came out of the aftermath of the Holocaust, which for some reason people go through great pains to refuse to comprehend.
That's fine - should you ever find yourself as part of a demographic that some other group wants eradicated, feel free to defend to the death their right to organize and recruit and argue for that, and tolerate their hatred as much as you like. In fact, just out of principle, make sure they have access to as many platforms as they want and can gather as much political power as possible. Maybe even try to engage them in debate, despite the unequal power dynamic between truth and lies (particularly in the modern ecosystem of engagement-driven social media and manufactured reality) - sunlight is the best disinfectant after all.
I'm sure it'll all work out OK.
>"That's fine - should you ever find yourself as part of a demographic that some other group wants eradicated." How do you know I'm not?
>"In fact, just out of principle, make sure they have access to as many platforms as they want" Just having a platform, or being on lots of platforms, does not guarantee an ideology will succeed or spread substantially.
>"Maybe even try to engage them in debate, despite the unequal power dynamic between truth and lies" Refuting lies is difficult, but it is still worth doing. I think its better than giving up and using force.