Your post got me thinking about tolerance. Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as:
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4 a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (such as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure developed a tolerance to painkillers; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor
b : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food
I find it ironic that those that preach tolerance have no tolerance for individuals not willing to adhere to their preaching. This then becomes an issue of what I'm willing to endure.
For example, I will occasionally endure the annoyance of my son forgetting to put the dishes in the dishwasher after he eats, because I love him. But, it doesn't mean that never express my disappointment in his occasional lapse of common courtesy for cleaning up after himself.
However, I will never give up my right to voice my opinion about a behavior or belief that I disagree with. This works for me and my son, because there is mutuality in our relationship. He knows that actions have consequences to me. The mutuality in our relationship has created respect.
The current climate of being PC, is a dangerous one. For the politically correct movement wants to silence voice and opinions that they disagree with, claiming they are insensitive. Yet they fail to be sensitive to other opinions. There is no mutuality on which to form respect and an open discussion. of the topic.
Once again, I find myself turn to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous dissent in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919):
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.