Greetings From George: Intolerance Is Now Tolerance!

There is something happening in the world today that caught my attention:
The term tolerance seems to be undergoing significant change and it is quite alarming.

First let's take a look at the definition of tolerance. Merriam Webster states:

Definition of tolerance

1. 1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2. 2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3. 3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4. 4a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (such as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure developed a tolerance to painkillers; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factorb : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food.
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance (bold emphasis mine)

Looking at events happening in the world today, it seems like the term tolerance has changed its meaning and now is no longer universal, but rather exclusive. I refer specifically to the definition of the term in 2a: 'sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.'

Once tolerance meant leaving ALL others alone, no matter what they did, as long as they did it in the privacy of their homes and didn't initiate force against others. Live and let live, so to speak. But now it seems to mean a different thing altogether. Now the term seems to mean tolerance only for those who are considered to be tolerant.

So, if the Weltanschauung of someone is considered to be intolerant, it does not deserve to be tolerated, it seems. There actually was a real debate about whether it is alright to punch a 'Nazi' in the face and apparently there were two sides to the argument. With the term 'Nazi' nowadays meaning pretty much everybody who is not in agreement with whatever the world agenda is at the time, this is a very troubling development, in my humble opinion.

The new definition of tolerance sounds something like this: Sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from one's own only slightly. All conflicting views are no longer included, only a certain selection, it seems.

I will not stand for this. If tolerance does not include tolerance of conflicting views, and suddenly it is alright to attack people because of what they believe, no matter how ugly their beliefs may be, the term has lost its meaning altogether.

If we don't tolerate conflicting views, we are NOT tolerant, it is actually quite simple.

Tolerance means nothing if it does not include every view imaginable, no matter how much we hate it.

So let me ask you: Do you believe it is alright to physically attack someone holding conflicting views from your own? Let's take a Nazi for example. Is it ok to hit a Nazi in the face because of his views? If so, why and what does that mean for your own tolerance in your opinion?

I for one believe that it is ALWAYS wrong to initiate force, no matter how evil the victim appears to be and how detestable their views seem to me. But maybe I'm just being old-fashioned.

Please comment, I would love to hear what you think!