[edna314]

> Generally speaking groups of people that disagree so fundamentally on things should have borders between them.

I think disagreeing is not the issue here. I can happily disagree with you on a fundamental level and we live side by side peacefully without you tolerating anything I say or me tolerating anything you say. The problem starts once the disagreement is not just about ideas, but about actions. In this case, we have to sit together and figure out a set of rules that govern our actions. I can safely ignore/tolerate your ideas, because you have a mind where your ideas can exist and I have a mind where my ideas can exist. The problem is that we share the same outside world. And there I cannot just ignore what you are doing, because it is part of my world, too. So, I would argue as long tolerance is about ideas it is not harmful, but also not really beneficial and if it is about actions it is automatically harmful, because it means harm to me if I just tolerate your actions without talking with you about potential resolutions.

[googthrowaway42]

In practice, people generally tend to act on their beliefs so the distinction you're drawing is kind of moot. For sure it is possible to argue things from a purely intellectual or academic perspective.

[edna314]

Not entirely, people act according to the law as well. I’m sure there was a situation where you were thinking that a law didn’t make sense, but you acted accordingly anyways. And this law was put in place because two people had a problem with each other which had to be resolved. I’m just arguing we don’t need tolerance, because we have a mechanism in place, called the state, or the law, which resolves issues and not just ignores them, as tolerance does.