Julia, many great points. A fundamental flaw in your position, however, is that all acts of ‘intolerance’ depend on 1) the object and 2) who’s making the judgment. Iow, intolerance is entirely subjective and isn’t always a bad thing.

To some extent, all of us are (or should be) intolerant of at least a few things if not merely to survive. I am intolerant of lies about my performance at work.

You’re doing brain surgery with a hammer to base your whole moral outlook on circular reasoning and blanket-adjectives. It’s like saying you’re against negativity, as if this were bottom line moral high ground. Sometimes negativity is warranted when one considers what they’re being negative about.

What’s hiding in plain sight is a conflict of values and how one side of our political divide has swung the pendulum of zeitgeist from ultra left point of view to the polar opposite. Both sides could learn from each other.

Declaring war against political provacators because they use class of free speech deemed intolerant by some is throwing the baby out with the bath water and against our American tradition. Furthermore, to assume that the words of any singled out group inevitably lead to dangerous outcomes isn’t a foregone conclusion — or is it?

Hey, here’s an idea: why don’t we openly, spiritedly and rationally talk about it? This means fully hearing both points of view and engaging in healthy dialog. And yet you seem to advocate shutting this down based on entirely subjective criteria.

So, here’s my proposal. Lets employ the ‘do no harm’ principle to figure this out. Whether or not any speech should be absolutely free or not should be tested by its verifiable harm to our fundamental rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness). Then, instead of creating the Idea Police, err on the side of openly expressing alternative, potentially conflicting points of view.