- Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
I'm pretty sure I would rather have a tolerant culture than a culture of indignant sides. Jon Haidt on the subject:
The point is that a tolerant culture can only exist when all parties tolerate each other. When someone's beliefs threaten other members of their community, those beliefs can't be tolerated. That's not a culture of indignant sides, that's the only tolerance that can last.
I had a thought to [The Evolution of Trust (prisoners dilemma) presentation by Nick Case that went big recently](http://ncase.me/trust/) (chapter 6 in the presentation if you want to skip to it, check it out first) In my head, the ideal world of tolerant people is the 'Copykittens win world', but the part that I had forgotten about is how much miscommunication affected the tournament- in the simulation, just 10% miscommunication would lead to a world where everyone cheats (in my head, the equivalent of a culture having a direct intolerance of at least another culture). Arguments about how this is simulation aside, alright, I've decided it's not practical to not want to punch people in the face. You win.
We have two choices with how to deal with people in society. Constructively, or destructively. The latter is never the better option.