[flagged]
Also I can be intolerant to you, because you are intolerant (to people you think are intolerant).
This is neither smart nor moral. This is logically inconsistent and breeds conflict almost by definition.
It's never been more clear to me that you didn't click the link
It's a recursive paradox: an intolerant person cannot define what intolerance is, but that's what often happens in reality.
I also recommend
https://medium.com/extra-extra/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-prec...
As an effect it also reject the concept of an intolerant person, as there are only people with different views about what constitutes an acceptable state of peace and what represent real and present danger.
If the left view the right as jeopardizing safety, and the right view the left as jeopardizing safety, then existential conflict is inevitable and tolerance as a strategy is dropped by both.
"clear, specific and concrete danger" is something that may be a better set of criteria. If one can not specify the danger, or if it is not concrete, then its arguable not very clear or present.
Now, once you consider that the people that I’m imagining are nearly-spherical but covered in spikes and all of them are in the bottom of a big slippery bowl, you can see how they’re always causing harm to one another. Also in this scenario they can only communicate in grunts and as such they rely on me - the dungeon master judge - to resolve conflicts through a complex legal system that I made up. Sadly I am powerless to do anything about the spikes or how slippery the bowl is, so you can guess how that works out.
To all the people that talk about a “social contract” I say “put that in your pipe and smoke it”!
There is also a difference between speach and action. As a society, we should allow all speach (e.g., people questioning authority), but supress certain actions (e.g., violence). Currently, the American left seems to believe that people voicing the wrong views justified violence. That belief is abhorrent and fundamentally completely at odds with liberalism and a just and well functioning society.
Specifically, re-tolerance of intolerance, I highly recommend a speach by Rowan Atkinson on exactly that topic. If you Google it you can probably find it. It is worth a watch. He is an incredibly intelligent and eloquent man.