Respect doesn't require tolerance but it produces a similar effect.

Some

If you respect someone, you don't shoo them away.

But that doesn't mean you tolerate a certain thing.

I respect some homosexuals, for instance, but don't tolerate their homosexuality.

Frederick the Great, for instance.

I respect the man and thus would not speak lowly of him, especially not to his face were I so privileged to meet the Prussian Ruler.

Respect, however, is earned.

Tolerance is wantonly distributed.

You can tolerate to listen to a homosexual friend of yours telling you about his day, can't you?

It's not tolerance

i.e. his fucking point

If he were a friend, he would have earned my respect. That's not tolerance.

His homosexuality wouldn't factor.

Hahaha, it's that

I wouldn't tolerate his homosexuality and he would know this.

Our friendship wouldn't hinge on that, however.

we post memes here, sirs

I have a very close pagan friend, for instance.

He knows I think his gods are demons

Respect gives you tolerance as well

We're still friends because he has earned my respect.

To tolerate someone is not the false-virtue of tolerance.

This is a failure of the English language.

It's causality, nothing less

To make a compromise, I think what Leviathan and I may be referring to is rather *acceptance,* would you say so, Leviathan?

Tolerance vs. Acceptance.

Of the blind varietal

tbh this entire argument may as well be a meme of itself

Or a how-to on how not to go into an argument misinformed

kek

Acceptance is a choice sounding contraption

@𝕷𝖊𝖛𝖎𝖆𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖓 Should we define tolerance by its conventional form, rather than it's form as false-virtue, which is better suited to being called Acceptance?

If only because English is inadequate at dealing with these concept differences?

Or would you prefer to use the term hypertolerance?

<:ducc:596750783979061283>

"I accept you for who you are" vs "I tolerate your behavior"

To a hammer ever...

these concepts are not the same