I humbly submit an Anatomy of Intolerance in three steps:

1. A person exists, having certain values and opinions.

2. The person observes something which offends their values and opinions.

3. The person responds to that thing, with quiet reservation, vocal dissent, active opposition, or in some other way.

Step 2 seems to conform to the dictionary definition of intolerance, and seems unobjectionable to me.

Step 3 is where Eich hit trouble, and I suspect that ecib is intolerant of activity only in that step.

I first saw this story on The Dish and I thought Sullivan got it right. But then I saw ecib's comment and I thought he was right. Sullivan has since posted some updates and I'm again unsure.

Why do most of us tolerate this once-widely-maligned group? Surely because culture has evolved. Perhaps this trend will continue until even today's most despised villains are tolerated, if not embraced, with understanding. This paragraph in The Atlantic was striking:

Nobody can deny that we are sometimes biochemical puppets. In 2000, an otherwise normal Virginia man started to collect child pornography and make sexual advances toward his prepubescent stepdaughter. He was sentenced to spend time in a rehabilitation center, only to be expelled for making lewd advances toward staff members and patients. The next step was prison, but the night before he was to be incarcerated, severe headaches sent him to the hospital, where doctors discovered a large tumor on his brain. After they removed it, his sexual obsessions disappeared. Months later, his interest in child pornography returned, and a scan showed that the tumor had come back. Once again it was removed, and once again his obsessions disappeared.

The man's name wasn't publicised, but his story reminded me of Phineas Gage.