> that's a deceptive semantic conflation (i.e., poor logic; a bad idea). tolerance is for the person, not the idea (e.g., morals). ideas neither need nor deserve "tolerance". many ideas don't even deserve attention, let alone esteem or support.

That's true, but then you need to set up judicable public standards for how to rule on which ideas are good and which are bad. Since most of "liberal" or "free" society is based on refusing to institutionalize morality outside fairly specific civil guidelines, this kind of society is, well, as many people have pointed out, largely incompatible with and unprepared for the challenge of systematically and publicly telling the difference between right and wrong.

it's understandable to want such a commonly-shared standard, but that's not necessary (i'd even contend it's not desirable, for a robust and resiliant society).

we already codify ideas, test them, rank them, and modify or discard them through academic, religious, political, commercial, and social organizations. it's a dynamic system, not a (slowly-built) static one.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". - MLK Jr. (paraphrasing theodore parker apparently, which i just learned =)

If you can't appeal to a codified standard, I see no reason you should be allowed to exercise authority over others.