>>21467604>an ideology of racial purity also can't abide people who think "racial impurity" is fine.Of course it can, so long as they're of the same race. Saying you want a country to be 100% Asian doesn't mean you want everyone to agree with you, even on that matter.
>And I'm telling you, every ideology is just as much an "ideological crusade" against its antithesis. Not really, or at least not necessarily. Even some religions, such as judaism, don't believe in proselytizing and don't pursue converts. There is no arc of history, or whatever hegelian nonsense you seem to believe in, forcing this.
Also, if tolerance is unique for tolerating everything except the intolerant, then every other ideology is by definition intolerant and thus not to be tolerated. That is, a tolerant society can not abide by any other ideology whatsoever.
>The thing about tolerance is that it can abide anything BUT intolerance.And why not?
Hell, what even is intolerance here? I'm intolerant of public nudity, theft, and murder. Should I be executed for being intolerant of them? Criminal systems are effectively codified intolerance, do we all have to be anarchists now?
>We're not talking about the first amendment. We are though. The first amendment is ultimately an amendment of tolerance. It says that anyone can say whatever they want, and believe whatever they want, regardless of what that might be.
>every ideology tolerates some things, but that does not mean they consider tolerance itself to be a moral imperative. Yes, an incomplete sort of tolerance is the norm for literally any ideology, which is why declaring your system of beliefs "tolerant" despite being intolerant of certain groups is disingenuous at best.
Which is to say, going back to my original post, that I'm not against tolerance but against the partial view of "tolerance" which declares itself as being on some sort of moral crusade against intolerance.
