[generalizations]

> pick and choose your friends based on political affiliation

I think this is the saddest part of what's been happening recently. We don't need to separate ourselves from people with different viewpoints. I'm lucky enough to be friends with people on the left and the right, but I think that's only because we stay away from politics. In fact, it's something that used to be a Christian ideal - to be able to maintain a courteous friendship with someone you are fundamentally at odds with (See: Song of Roland, Christian & "Saracen" Knights).

It's not often something I see folks right of center doing, but it seems like a ton of people left of center have been distancing themselves from people with whom they disagree too strongly. It's too bad. We need to open up to more discourse, not less.

[Aeolun]

I don’t distance myself from people with a different opinion. I distance myself from people that have a different opinion for the wrong reasons.

[generalizations]

Is there a difference? The reasons we hold our opinions are fundamentally just another set of opinions. Unless you're talking about something more fundamental - in that case, yes, we can still be friends when our first principles are opposed. It's just harder.

I think it comes down to just how tolerant we're willing to be. It's easy to be tolerant when the stakes are low; who cares if someone is doing something somewhere else that makes us uncomfortable? The Christian ideal is to be tolerant of someone who is actively doing us harm.

[kelnos]

> The Christian ideal is to be tolerant of someone who is actively doing us harm.

That seems like a foolish ideal that has the end result of you being marginalized, with people who would do harm to you and others gaining control of society. Frankly, it sounds like just another system of control invented by religious leaders.

People who actively do us harm should be swiftly and firmly disabused of the notion that what they're doing will ever be tolerated. Anything less is folly.

[generalizations]

Tolerance doesn't mean you never resist. Tolerance means you're willing to have a conversation, and you can be friends in spite of fundamental differences.

Christians who live up to the ideal are willing to have a civil relationship with anyone. That's the point. That's tolerance.

It means you actually know the other person, and you're not making (possibly misinformed) assumptions about them. The next step in the relationship may very well be to 'firmly disabuse them', but it's not the first step.

[kelnos]

I don't think that's the definition of "tolerance" that most people think of. To me, it means to allow someone to do something that you don't agree with or thing is harmful. Not to get to know them and then convince them not to do it.

Getting to know them and convincing them not to do it implies that you will not tolerate their actions, but have wisely decided that a soft touch is likely to get you better results.

[amanaplanacanal]

I can be friends with many despite our differences. But surely there are some that are just not worth the effort. Life is too short.

[Aeolun]

> yes, we can still be friends when our first principles are opposed. It's just harder.

If someone tells me they think I’m fundamentally a lesser person than them because of skin color, just because that’s how god made us, that’s not a fruitful base for a good relationship.