Free and open societies don't decide at all what they tolerate. That's the entire point. If certain ideas are banned, you are not free.
In that case you should understand that no one is obligated to hear you whining about topics, specially those you're not even willing to discuss.
I am not a philosopher and I have no idea how to reason about situations where individual rights for individuals and groups of individuals clash.
That's a great question. In short, the 99% of people should tolerate the 1%. They don't need to choose to associate with them, but don't take action against them to silence them.
> I am not a philosopher and I have no idea how to reason about situations where individual rights for individuals and groups of individuals clash.
I think this quote is probably appropriate:
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." - John Stuart Mill
I'm sure that we don't need a debate to agree that genocide is something that's not acceptable. Do you disagree?
This is a logical fallacy called equivocation. Denying a genocide happened, however repugnant it may be, is not the same thing as genocide. Pretending it is in order to borrow the weight of genocide is a common tactic used to try to silence arguments without addressing them.