I don't know any of the people involved in whatever happened. But this statement is simply not true.

You should not tolerate intolerance. "If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant".

Some people can and will abuse the "you can't use violence against me under any circumstance" rule you just mentioned to do very bad things.

I would argue that resorting to physical violence to resolve verbal conflicts is quite high on the scale of intolerable things.

> You should not tolerate intolerance. "If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant".

I have issues with this absolutism. What is "intolerance" or not is dependant of culture and context. Such a thin line that can be so easily moved, and you end up with the moral equivalent of "3 felonies a day". Then before you know it, you get fired because someone deemed that using 'they' indiscriminately is a form of intolerance.

I would argue that this line is not thin at all, you are just mixing things.

There is a huge gradient between "using 'they' indiscriminately" and "I believe killing all jews is the way to go".

The point is not "do not tolerate ANY FORM of intolerance", just that tolerance should have clear limits.

> There is a huge gradient between "using 'they' indiscriminately" and "I believe killing all jews is the way to go".

The problem is that the gradient between those is smooth, and there's no obvious Schelling Points to stop at.