> While I agree with the thrust of the argument, if I'm reading it correctly, that damaging extremists are probably not worthy of tolerance, I find the chipping-away at fundamental values to be disquieting. Pushing the argument further, at what point is tolerance justified? Only when dealing with people who agree with you? In which case it's no longer "tolerance".

by the author's definition, i think that this would be too narrow to qualify as tolerance. according to the author: "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."

for what it's worth, i generally go out of my way to give the benefit of the doubt and to be tolerant. and i very much support erring heavily on the side of free speech when it comes to legislation and government regulation. and while i have zero problem with requesting an explanation from someone as to why they believe what they believe, even if i agree with those beliefs, i also have zero problem lumping someone with strong racist or sexist beliefs in with climate change deniers and anti-vaxers. i'd say flat earthers, but flat earthers are harmless. whereas, people who deny climate change, think that vaccines cause autism, believe that women are genetically predisposed to be less talented engineers, or believe that black people are genetically inclined to criminality: these are people who hurt the rest of society via their idiocy. like anyone else, they deserve a chance at education, and we shouldn't suppress their ability to speak should some agree to broadcast them or to listen. but anyone with any sort of sense should do what they can to convince the rest of the world that those moronic viewpoints aren't worth serious consideration, because they've been refuted many times over, and no novel arguments are being made.

> If we're going to chip away at values, why not question all kinds of other fundamentals? Why should people of all types get equal work opportunities, equal pay, when they may have other natural advantages/disadvantages in society at large? Why should talented/smart/beautiful/athletically-endowed people (and, of course, middle-class white males, naturally) get rewarded with much greater wealth-per-effort than others? To what extent should society try to "redress the balance" with taxes/benefits? Why should we reward mere ownership of productive assets, rather than only personal productivity? Then there's a step-back look at modern society, with the nuclear family, work-for-wages, etc, which are relatively new and untested developments in society relative to the age of humanity.

fine by me. i am fine questioning literally every single one of those things, and actively evaluating how they fit into our social structure. "why should talented/smart/beautiful/athletically-endowed people (and, of course, midle-class white males...) get rewarded with much greater wealth-per-effort than others?" great question. i can't think of a good moral reason, but i can think of lots of unsatisfactory-on-a-moral-level explanations that sum up to those outcomes.