Toleration is the absence of objection to behaviors, attitudes or similar things where others unrightfully believe that they justify objection. This, I believe, is a reasonable definition when one puts the word “Tolerance” at the beginning of the sentence; however, I think that tolerance is much better categorized and contextualized from a more fundamentally philosophical perspective:

Decisions, acts, beliefs and so on and so forth are moral or immoral based on how they affect you and the people around you. Some beliefs would cause harm, others not so much. Now, in a perfect world we would all agree on what beliefs cause harm, at which point the creation of the words “tolerance” and “intolerance” would never be prompted. The word “intolerance” emerges only when disagreement over the effect of a belief or act exists. Commonly, the word “intolerance” is used to describe such things that unnecessarily, ie. immorally, hurt individuals or groups of individuals. Not all hurt is “bad”, but that which is bad is intolerant if the motivation for that hurt is based on prejudice. Theft isn't necessarily “intolerant” if it is motivated by personal gain only, but if it is motivated in part by prejudice then at least the motivation for the act is considered “intolerant”. From this, tolerance emerges as the word that simply means the opposite, being accepting of things that others are not accepting of.

A distinction needs to be made, again, that objecting to actually immoral things is not considered intolerant. If an act or belief is actually harmful - like, say, a murder - then calling this out is not based on prejudice but on moral principles. From this, calling out harmful sentiments - like, say, “all blacks are evil” - is not intolerant either. It is a rejection of intolerance. While, sure, calling this out may “hurt” the person who actually believes it, “hurting” them is not unnecessary or immoral.¹⁾ In fact, the intended effect is to stop that person from hurting more people by hurting them; ie. hurting them is intended to have a positive impact in the long run.²⁾³⁾

Classic examples of intolerance include racism and bigotry. Racism is a misguided belief in the superiority of a specific group of people over others, which satisfies the “unrightful”, the “prejudice” and the “objecting” condition. Recognizing the unrightful part and therefore not objecting to other races is not prejudiced and therefore widely understood as being “tolerant”. Bigotry works the same, just that the target group is usually different and the prejudice expressed in a different form as well.

Objection!

• Rightful, no Prejudice: If you object to something but do so rightfully, you are not intolerant. Objection to racism is rightful, therefore not intolerant.
  
• Unrightful, no Prejudice: If you object to something without being right about it, but not out of prejudice, you are wrong.⁴⁾
  
• Rightful, with Prejudice: If you object to something rightfully, but out of prejudice, you are lucky to have come to the correct conclusion. The objection itself may not be wrong, your reasoning likely is intolerant.
• Unrightful, with Prejudice: Your average racist. Intolerant.

No objection! In that case you may be prejudiced, but not intolerant, as you are tolerating things you may falsely believe are objectionable. If you make no objection on something that is rightfully objectionable, you are merely indifferent/not acting on it.

Perspective