That's called the "paradox of tolerance" or the "tolerance fallacy" -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
Interesting food for thought from philosopher Karl Popper, to be sure. For me, it begs the question: Is it possible to disdain intolerance without hypocrisy? And if not, are the benefits of doing so worth enduring that unpalatable label? Now I've made it clear before, but it won't hurt to re-iterate. The principles I'm talking about apply to people interacting socially in general, not the rules of a private forum or venue where there is a legitimate vested interest in keeping said venue free of hostility.
What exactly do we mean when we say "intolerance?" When I consider that question, my thoughts are as follows. As a society, there is much we don't tolerate - murder, theft, rape, etc. I'm sure most would agree those are good things not to tolerate. So clearly we're not being specific enough when we say "intolerance" is bad, because obviously there are things towards which we need to be intolerant. Not only things, but I would even go so far as to say that there are certain people groups to which we need to be intolerant. People groups like felons, pedophiles, terrorists, etc.
Similarly, when we criticize somebody for being "intolerant," that also is too vague a criticism. It's what or who we don't tolerate that determines whether or not intolerance has value. If somebody's intolerant of laziness or prevarication, that's not such a bad thing. If they are intolerant of any particular skin color, ethnicity, or gender, most (myself included) agree that's uncool.
Once we realize that it isn't the whole of intolerance that's bad, but only certain specific applications of it, the whole problem of the hypocritical paradox disappears. We're now not disdaining all intolerance, merely certain applications of it.
Then there's the question of whether or not Maniac's comment even qualifies as intolerance in the first place. This thread was titled, "Men wearing dresses
as a fashion statement." Maniac's two word response was "It's disgusting." Let's think about that a minute. To what or whom is Maniac objection? A particular fashion statement among men. That's all. It would be different if he said the behavior should be outlawed, or suggested it deserved some sort of punitive retaliation. That most certainly would have qualified as intolerance. But he didn't do that.
What Maniac expressed was not intolerance, but rather his own personal revulsion. Let's not confuse disapproval with intolerance, because they are not the same thing. A father can disapprove of his son's long hair (even to the point of revulsion) and yet still tolerate it.
Finally, I believe that as a community, we must ask ourselves this: Is it appropriate for community members to attack other members because they perceive statements as expressing intolerance? Or does it make more sense to reasonably voice disagreement, and then let the moderators decide if a boundary was crossed?