Is tolerance intolerant?

[tackattack]

---

Is trust necessary for understanding or compassion? Is that something we should strive for. Personally I have to trust some people, but I don't have to trust Jeffry Dahmer to understand his motives. I might need trust to show compassion. idk. That brings up intrinsic worth of compassion and value as a person/society into the equation.

It's necessary for the sort of national coming together Benny was commenting on, yeah.  For notions of the most fundamental unity and cohesion and equality to be more than transparent lip service.  Not everyone around a fire singing kumbaya, just the basic expectations.  Just as understanding why and how the things people bitch about as PC is necessary.

I've never known any complaint about the latter to be more than the prelude to some notion that a person feels slighted by not being able to slight another.  Is it really any wonder that we're in the state we're in? The irony of a thread ostensibly about the intolerance of tolerance swirling that particular drain is delicious. No one is suffering from any lack of understanding on that count, and no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them more so.

---

I like your choice of words. So instead of striving for tolerance we should strive for finding fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals. I value your opinion but I respectfully disagree with your last point that no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them less butt hurt. The irony is that in this thread of intolerance of tolerance that by seeking understanding and showing compassion and valuing the fundamental basics that make each giver of an opinion human, it''s become quite a tolerant discussion about intolerance

---

ok so similar to justice and blind justice. I'm down for informed trust instead of blind trust.
So instead of being PC or general civic principles of tolerance we would have time better spent shooting for a respectful(trust and understanding) and compassionate civic goals?

Where should it be limited? In the laws? To the person? In creative endeavors (music, art, speech) or should it always be a cornerstone of society?

"Respect" is a word I never use. Far more often than not, it is used, BY ALL LABELS, to mean "Don't bruise my ego" and or "Know your place."

I think Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man and he once said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." But does that mean I have to "respect" that even given that, at the time of the signing of the Constitution slavery was still acceptable?

I use the word "value" instead. I will always value human rights and non violence, but I do not have to "respect" bad claims. 

I will "value" evidence when it is provided.

---

OK so respect isn't the right word. Value is fine. You can value someone's worth as another living breathing organism with an opinion and perspective different than yours. You can trust, like you have here, that there are no ulterior motives, that it's just a discussion on tolerance/intolerance. I consider respect = value+ trust. As you define respect differently we can just use the base terms.

So would you agree with: it would be better than just tolerating someone to find basic value and trust to promote fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals?