Is tolerance intolerant?

[tackattack]

---

I think that tolerance is the usual thing - the willingness to accept the existence of opinions and behaviors we don't agree with.  The allowable variation between standards.

What you're discussing, is carte blanche, not tolerance.  That we can tolerate the sheer existence of assholes doesn't give them freedom to operate on their impulses or require that we allow those impulses into the decision making process...nor does it mean that we can't routinely point out that and exactly why they're assholes.

Tolerance - Stop being an asshole.

Alt Right Tolerance™ - stop calling me an asshole for being an asshole..waaaaaaah, what about tolerance!?!

Tolerance - Then stop being an asshole.

It's super simple.

Social conservatism is the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions. This can include moral issues.

One can understand why a person who sees fragility in society would be slow to change what works. They can be wrong about what works, who it works for, and why it works - we can have that disagreement, that's the progressive disagreement in a nutshell. Juxtapose this against the politics of spite and resentment that defines the alt right and their current crusade against PC and tolerance, as well as our established institutions. It's not so much a disagreement to be had with the latter, as it is the necessity to completely excoriate their ideology - to deplatform and delegitimize it. Pushing it back to the fringe where it's incapable of causing the harm it has in the past and is currently doing. It will still exist, it will still be around, but it can't be given even the slightest amount of leverage. There is no conversation to be had over whether or not that ideology works, we already knew that it didn't but we're slow to learn...I guess.

So here we are, stuck in the dumbest timeline. More and more space purchased for that spite and resentment..and mostly because it seems to some establishment types that they might be a good ally in the struggle against their opposition establishment wing - and this is an entirely bipartisan arrangement, with the left granting credence and using them as the case example of the new right (which is becoming more and more true by the day, sadly) and the right handing them authority while trying to swing them around like an axe against the left to their own detriment, more often than not. The enemy of my enemy is my friend nonsense. If there were -anything- that the left and right could band together, as a civic goal..towards...it would be re-consigning that ideology to the dust bin of defeated enemies. Everyone has skin in that game. But no.....lol...nooooo.

Dumbest........timeline.

---

As to the definition of tolerance I agree with that. In your example though you weren't demonstrating tolerance you were correcting intolerance with an affirmative first liner. Might I suggest:
tolerance- Do you have an opinion?
Alt Right Tolerance™ - I would like to be an asshole
tolerance- congratulations you're an asshole


Opinions are like assholes right? Everyone got one and none are as good your your own. I think a lot of that polarization and deplatforming the others are deeply tied together. In a pluralistic society we should welcome new opinions and new platforms (to the extent they've bought in) because platforms aren't right or wrong, just different (and different is OK) and serving a different subset (and diversity is OK). The problem lies in emotionalism. Some of the worst sermons I've ever heard are how x people have it wrong and we're right. How do you change an establishment without emotionalism. Causing outrage and stirring a bees nest is how it's been done forever. I still hold that fighting war with war is as stupid as fire with fire, I'm just not sure I know a better way forward. We should all just let AI make our choices for us, that would be far more reasonable