You're falsely presenting that as the only solution to the philosophical problem.
In fact, when it comes to government regulation of speech, the philosophical approach taken by the First Amendment, and the very thoughtful jurists who have interpreted it, is the opposite: that we must tolerate intolerance.
And as for the social sphere, where legal freedom of speech does not apply of course, the problem with too liberally being intolerant of "intolerance" is that the definition of "intolerance" is itself a political thing, inevitably expanded and wielded as a weapon against dissent. For example, opposition to more immigration becomes branded as inherently intolerant.
I certainly err on the side of agreeing with the thesis that we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, which is Anil's point as well, that said the source material I linked to (wikipedia), gives attention to both the argument and its counterpoints. I do find it interesting and relevant to this conversation that we have both been downvoted for our points.
There is a depraved desire in all of us to use our momentary power to achieve final victory. The right tried with McCarthyism half a century ago when it had cultural dominance, and the left is currently trying now that it has achieved cultural dominance.
Our political order can do a lot to stymie such attempts, but it cannot replace the need for personal virtue. No constitution can save a people from itself.
If the left has achieved cultural dominance, why has it not achieved political dominance? I think that divide speaks to the argument that bigotry is dangerous and powerful. I agree that there can certainly be a chilling from leftist critiques but don't see that it as equaling McCarthyism.
Cultural dominance, in the form of media, entertainment, social media stardom etc is controlled by a relatively small group of gatekeepers who exercise a tight grip on their respective Overton windows.
Cultural grassroots swells of a certain flavor on Twitter and YouTube in particular were quickly handicapped when they started to go viral. I think the cultural/political discrepancy reflects this.
Upon further reading I find myself chuckling and agreeing with your thesis statement: "There is a depraved desire in all of us to use our momentary power to achieve final victory."
tl;dr: The choices made in these examples are political, but the words communicating them are not always so flexible.
the problem with too liberally being intolerant of "intolerance" is that the definition of "intolerance" is itself a political thing
It can be, but it can also be an attribute of the text. The fact that "Jews should be eradicated" advocates an intolerance of the very existence of Jews isn't a political interpretation because it's right there in the text. The advocacy, the desire to utter the sentiment, is political for sure, but the words that express those politics leave no room for interpretation.
If "too liberally" was meant to communicate this, it's kind of doing a lot of work for its mention in passing.
For example, opposition to more immigration becomes branded as inherently intolerant.
Is this an actual thing? Most of what I see is about a reduction in current immigration, including the deportation of people who have already been here for decades, which is indeed a kind of intolerance for the status quo of border policy. If there's a more charitable interpretation of this state of affairs I'm all ears/eyes.
In fact, when it comes to government regulation of speech, the philosophical approach taken by the First Amendment, and the very thoughtful jurists who have interpreted it, is the opposite: that we must tolerate intolerance.
And as for the social sphere, where legal freedom of speech does not apply of course, the problem with too liberally being intolerant of "intolerance" is that the definition of "intolerance" is itself a political thing, inevitably expanded and wielded as a weapon against dissent. For example, opposition to more immigration becomes branded as inherently intolerant.