I don't see it linked off this article so I'll throw another relevant one here - "The Most Intolerant Wins"
See: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Additionally full of all kinds of flavorful anecdotes like:
> I once pulled a prank on a friend. Years ago when Big Tobacco were hiding and repressing the evidence of harm from secondary smoking, New York had smoking and nonsmoking sections in restaurants (even airplanes had, absurdly, a smoking section). I once went to lunch with a friend visiting from Europe: the restaurant only had availability in the smoking sections. I convinced the friend that we needed to buy cigarettes as we had to smoke in the smoking section. He complied.
edit: there are a bevy of sibling comments to this one, asking an important question: "When should I be intolerant of intolerance?" The answer explored in the article above is, "...the formation of moral values in society doesn't come from consensus. The most intolerant person (or minority) imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance."
On a larger timescale, the most intolerant viewpoint will shift the views of others toward it. Recognizing this, a society can't tolerate a viewpoint which would be damaging to the core values that society purports to hold, or over the inevitable long-term it will destroy itself. This is why a society which values free speech must quash those elements inside it which will only accept censorship.
Also, "virtue" as quoted has a more specific meaning which is consistency with internal values. That's to say nothing of what those internal values are. They can be great or horrendous for society. Virtue is the willingness to sacrifice for them. Being intolerant is the mechanism by which civil rights advances, just as it can be used for evil.