Sure, I was interested in addressing the "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." specifically rather than your main argument. I do not think that I repeated any argument nor replied to something that was never said nor do I think that this debunks your main argument.

There's a razor in use; I advocate tolerance of speech up to the line of intolerant speech.

Yes, people are intolerant of all sorts of speech and expression which are perfectly harmless and protected speech. E.g. gay people kissing in a movie is "not family friendly" whereas straight people kissing is downright expected. Or, people being harrassed for wearing their symbols of faith in public, etc. That's speech and expression that aren't harmful, though they do offend bigots -- there's no demonstrable harm in those expressions, and the offended can piss right off. (edit: harrassing is not free speech; wearing symbols of faith is)

What I was referring to as intolerance is hate speech. Calling for violence, denegrating a class of people, etc. There, real and demonstrable harm is done.

You "debunked" the least generous interpretation of my statement, and thereby completely avoided the point.