I'm not sure you're in a position to be lecturing others about tolerance after a comment like that.

"Tolerance" is a noble concept in some sense. It means I respect the right of others to be stupid and annoying in the abstract, not necessarily in my passenger seat.

I'm a US citizen, and I don't claim to be an exception to our general lack of tolerance; I mean, I've been unreasonably annoyed at teenagers talking loudly, or people dropping cigarettes on the sidewalk, or making racist remarks, just like most people from the US. I'm just observing a fact.

As for "noble concepts", well, there's the kind of tolerance that's a "noble concept", and then there's the kind of tolerance that's an actual description of how some people behave toward other people, some of the time. Like, how Argentinians behave toward children, that people from the US don't. Or, for that matter, how Argentinians behave toward US tourists.

Turns out that there are real benefits to turning down your annoyance and smarter-than-thou attitude and digging folks who don't shop at the same supermarket you do. I can't always do it, but I'm glad when I can.

(By the way, when you complain about how awful it is to have to talk to someone who's stupid, you should consider how that would sound to someone who's a lot smarter than you are.)

Well that's great, but are we still talking about how folks don't want random strangers riding in their cars? Because I still don't want random strangers riding in my car, and I don't reckon that's in any way unreasonable.

I never said people from the US were unreasonable, just unbelievably intolerant. That's a matter of preference, and I don't think it makes sense to describe preferences as reasonable or unreasonable. It's like saying that it's unreasonable to have the flu or be short. Preferences aren't voluntary choices.