I suspect Yonatan Zunger would argue that James Damore broke the peace by writing something that hurt people.
(Whether it's true or not is irrelevant in that case; a hurtful truth is still hurtful.)
That would be my first objection to this theory. If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response, as a diplomatic insult might lead to a shooting war.
> If tolerance is a peace treaty, then it's easy to argue that the slightest breach of the peace merits the severest response
Certainly some will act that way, but I don't think it necessarily follows. The definition he provides of tolerance rather matches my own intuition when it comes to the mundane form of "tolerance" that neighbors show to one another when putting up with each others quirks.
But in any case, my point is that Zunger's character is irrelevant to whether any particular idea he happens to espouse is good or not. We must judge the idea on its own merits. To judge the idea based on what we think of Zunger himself is to engage in an fallacy.
Yes, if their argument is sound.
Edit: of course, we may still ask if they are living up to such standards as they set for others.