I feel like this idea is taken as gospel. I am not sure I buy it. Especially when applied to speech. I feel like there are many unanswered questions or implied

I feel like this idea is taken as gospel. I am not sure I buy it. Especially when applied to speech. I feel like there are many unanswered questions or implied assumptions when saying “tolerant exact for the intolerant”. 1. Who decides what is “intolerant behaviour”? 2. What checks and balances do we have to ensure tolerable behaviour is not incorrectly labelled as intolerant. 3. Is intolerant behaviour on a slider or is it a binary? If so, what mechanism do we have in place to ensure the “intolerance of intolerance” is proportional? I suppose going a step forward, we can also ask ourselves why is tolerance a good thing or a societal goal? Is it even a feasible goal? To me it doesn’t seem like society is “tolerant except for the intolerant”. It just seems it’s changing it’s labels for what behaviours are acceptable and what are not. I feel like if you’re really committed to “tolerant except for the intolerant” you need to draw the line at quantifiable harm, like violence or theft. If you don’t and include things like “psychological harm” or “systemic harm” or “hate speech” etc, you open up the system to abuse due to the grey area around labelling. I’m not saying psychological harm doesn’t exist or hate speech doesn’t have a negative effect on people subjected to it. But they are impossible to quantify and even harder to agree on. And that makes for bad concepts to build morality or even worse, law around.