> There is tolerance and then there are things that are not open to discussion

So what's not "open to discussion"? It seems like fundamentally everything about this election has been open to discussion, it's been a weird fucking election. Are you literally saying supporting Trump is a crime so bad that it's not "open to discussion"?

"The line tends to shift as society progresses." You talk about this "line" as if it's a real thing. Let me pose a fairly obvious question, in almost any time period, who imposed the limits of "what is not open to discussion", and what were their motives? Keep in mind, things that are obviously true don't need to be "not open to discussion", because nobody is bothering to discuss them.

How does this work in practice? This is something I've been thinking about and am struggling with. What if people don't agree with you and feel the same way about things not being open to discussion? Compromise? Split off into smaller and smaller groups that agree with each other? Refuse to work together? Shun? Shame? Resort to violence?

I'm serious. I don't have a good answer. I think it depends on the issue, but I know people are going to draw their lines differently. Thoughts?