Isn’t preaching intollerance just a different mechanism to have others be victimized by intolerance?

I mean, if you’re convincing others to do something, fully in the knowledge that they will do it, whilst you did not do the deed yourself you certainly purposefully made it happen.

At the risk of Goodwin-ing my own post, Hitler didn’t directly murder many people (if any), yet he murdered millions.

Or coming at it from another side, is somebody who gives rope to members of the KKK during a linching of a black person knowing that they’ll use it kill that person not acting intolerant?

My point being that whilst the boundary between being deemed as acting intolerant or not is indeed as you say not merelly the holding intolerant beliefs, that boundary is also not all the way at only directly acting in intolerant ways being intolerant acting.

It makes sense that preaching intolerance is acting in an intolerant way if one expects it will lead to acts of intolerance from others - it has the same objective, just using others as tools - and that at least some forms of knowingly supporting somebody who directly commits intolerant acts is itself an intolerant act because it knowingly enables the intolerant acts of others.