I think this suggests a problem on how we use the same word to tolerance to describe accepting people and accepting ideas. And it's unfortunate that this word suggests an almost begrudging acceptance.

Obviously we should all make every effort to include people who are different from us. I think most intelligent people recognize that it's wrong to exclude or mistreat people because of race, religion, gender, sexuality etc. We should treat people with empathy and ensure that we accommodate their differences.

Ideas, in my mind, don't deserve the same standard of respect as people. In fact I don't think ideas deserve any sort of special treatment. Wrong ideas should be challenged and excluded and good ideas should be brought to light.

The problem with using the word tolerance to describe accepting people and ideas is that too often we conflate the two. I think the best example of this was when someone punched Richard Spencer and the internet broke out into debate on whether it's okay to punch a nazi. It seemed a misconnect between accepting people and ideas, like people couldn't recognize that we should be intolerant of Richard Spencer's ideas but still be tolerant of Richard Spencer the human being. And while it's good to attack his ideas, it's wrong to attack and harm the person.

This is just semantics. When people say that we need "tolerance," they don't typically mean that we should start to tolerate the intolerable; only that we should question whether or not our own definition of "intolerable" is perhaps too restrictive.

Here are a couple of MLK quotes... these clearly indicate a desire for tolerance, together with a desire for change:

“We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.”

“Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, ‘Love your enemies.’ It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. Just keep being friendly to that person. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.”

Further, one can be tolerant and still desire (and work for) change. The world is not so black and white.

You've reminded me of David Brin's "Dogma of Otherness".

http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/dogmaofotherness.html

Basically this dogma of otherness is that in any discussion or situation, there is always room for another viewpoint. Everything is potentially valid. (This relates to tolerance, obviously).

This dogma is thoroughly the product/manifestation of western liberal elitism. To borrow your words, it's not actually virtuous, but an exclusionary idea.

Is this really something different than / opposed to tolerance? Or just a stronger state, of tolerance plus integration? I would argue that tolerance is one necessary part of integration, not some exclusionary alternative.