Creating a false equivalency between intolerance of the intolerant and intolerance of others / other groups is a key rhetorical device for fascists.
Even if you've walked to this position through "logic" and a concept of perfectly spherical human beings [0], with no steps through fascism, you should be aware of how this position is used by fascists to give themselves a veneer of rationality while painting their opponents as irrational.
>Seems like a typical mythos of most political movements these days, doesn't it? E.g., "the far-right is our greatest threat".
>Though I'm sure right-wing groups believe themselves to be tolerant of one-another and their allies and others with similar aims, and that groups that oppose them are intolerant and therefore must be met with intolerance.
>Other side will call them intolerant racists too, it is also pretty clear to them.
These would be the statements where they were creating a false equivalence. The things being compared are not equivalent but they are given rhetorical treatment to make them seem equivalent.
From what I can tell, they simply made an observation. You're the one applying a value judgment to their statements. Pointing out that different tribes use rhetoric to "other" outsiders isn't creating a false equivalence.
Denouncing and accusing people as fascists who must not be tolerated for the transgression of discussing social and political issues in a manner deemed verboten seems like something a fascist might do.
