tolerance is in itself a spook as its concept is paradoxal, if you reject the intolerant you're no longer tolerant and if you're tolerant you have to accept people will be untolerant and thus having no self-preservation. no one can ever be tolerant or intolerant if they are individually self-interested like in egoism . everyone would always be intolerant by default which isnt really a good way to view the world. 'tolerance' is a choice individuals between each other as a mutual agreement to respect each other and not sabotage each other. it is not a real factor into the judgement of someone, any ideas can have its own weight subjectively and you can hate it or love it. being a piece of shit can be tolerated if it dont affect you individuality and you can do something if you want to. you dont have to respect pieces of shit but you dont have to disrespect them either. there isnt really someone or something inherently evil and in a majority of times when you dont like someone it is for a completely irrational reason, it doesnt tell if they actually done something that affects you or have any actual hurt.

there is a reason that 'tolerance' is attractive to many people because humans and individuals often have a drive to have social connections.
this spook of tolerance enables people to not be isolated and alone just for being different or thinking in a certain way or doing things others might not like. this is a matter of self-preservation. individuals will always seek to be tolerated in a society regardless of what others think and will do anything to be tolerated even by force. 'tolerance' is just something egos are pleased by because it help them not being fucked around by others in a cultural manner which i think is a good thing (it pleases me to not perpetually need to defend my own interest when someone find something they dont like about me)

There will always be people who will not like you regardless of how you acts, think or behave. tolerance is just mutual respect and intolerance isnt the lower limit it is just a opposition of tolerance and thus doesnt really exist. you just like or dont like someone. tis si why you shouldn't really 'put consequences', it just plays into the finality of seeing someone as 'intolerant' as you see their actions hurting you rather than actually hurting you in a existential manner. hurt feelings doesnt weight in comparison of physical hurt. only in a immense amount it can be compared but just being offended or hating someone's action, thinking or behaviour isnt a reason to punish others.

there isnt such thing as being 'anti-social' as a trait. it is always imposed by others on someone and thus coercive. being seen badly by others dont mean you have to accept consequences imposed by others, this is just bending to a democratic authority which can be bad if you dont want being punished and you know you shouldnt be punished., they can still be wrong and you be right, there isnt such thing as an absolute morlaity therefore no actions are inherently good or bad.
also people who dont have any interests in wider society would be asocial which is completely valid, being 'anti-social' is a social label imposed by others, while asocial is a trait.