> how you separate things like “I’m concerned about my individual rights” from politics?

It's worse than that. You end up with lesbians posting about their girlfriends or small business owners posting a meme about a regulation they have to comply with and then getting blocked for politics if their tribe is the outgroup.

What you really need is for people to not be so intolerant of the other tribe being the other tribe.

But what do you do when intolerance is the thing you're being asked to be tolerant of?

Tolerance indeed means tolerating the intolerant as well, otherwise it's just another name for intolerance. It's clear we completely forgot that in our polarised world.

Tolerating intolerance is completely unacceptable.

How can you justify accepting and tolerating someone who’s point of view is I think you should have less rights than me.

This is called the Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Essentially you should be tolerant of others, unless they themselves are intolerant.

ie "tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact"

> Essentially you should be tolerant of others, unless they themselves are intolerant.

No, it's called a paradox because there is no "easy" answer to it. Also, who determines the exact line between free speech and intolerance? It is impossible to do. The reason the world is polarised today is because everybody thinks they have the simple answer to a literal ethical paradox that has none. The simple answer being: "those that share my beliefs are OK, those that don't should be canceled/demonised/hidden somewhere I don't see them." Thus creating echo chambers so people get more and more radical.

Free speech is the only half acceptable answer, which means free speech for anyone, whatever their point of view, however offensive you deem them to be. Rowan Atkinson explained it more eloquently that I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc

I partially agree with you. There is probably a fuzzy line somewhere in between, but reasonable people on either side of it should be able to discuss their disagreements without resorting to canceling each other. However, the challenge arises when dealing with those who lie to manipulate. This isn’t about differing opinions; it’s about the integrity of the discourse. Tolerating such behavior only gives credence to falsehoods, hence "paradox".

I agree free speech must be protected, whatever it is, but it doesn’t mean we should accept manipulation and deceit. The goal should be to foster genuine dialogue, not to create echo chambers or allow harmful lies to spread unchecked.

That should be the norm everywhere but one tribe's entire identity is being intolprant of people and things that ultimately have zero effect on them or anyone.