Intolerance of intolerance* is appropriate (and necessary), but only if one has the moral clarity to properly identify intolerance.

Say Bob decides that Jane as intolerant, and thus treats Jane with intolerance (including violence, denial of services, denial of a platform to speak or defend themselves) — but it turns out Bob was wrong. He took somebody (or likely, somebodies, and likely unconsciously) at their word that Jane was intolerant. He didn’t bother to verify. At this point, Bob has just engaged in warrantless intolerance of Jane, at great expense to her, and thus has become the *very person he wanted to fight against.*

Claiming that someone is intolerant is not free from moral weight or karma. If we get it wrong, and that someone is hurt because of it, we’ve done something bad. Calling someone intolerant/racist/hateful is not a freebie — this label affects people’s lives — it turns on a facet of wrath upon them. It affects their life, their friendships, their employment, their ability to take care of themselves, their emotional state, their physical safety, etc.

*Harmful and/or systemic intolerance — we all fail to be tolerant of random people we meet or share the roads with — so there is a minimum threshold.