And I agree that in many cases it is appropriate to go beyond tolerance to acceptance, but tolerance is more broadly warranted, even in some cases where acceptance is not.
And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"? It brings to mind the difference between granting certain rights vs. recognizing that they are truly inalienable and exist naturally.
With that in mind, I can't think of a case wherein acceptance is not "warranted", unless it involves harm to others or infringement on their rights. So, I'm not sure that acceptance is the right term, though, to your point, there may yet be one better than "true tolerance".
Of course, everyone is free to not accept or be tolerant or whatever we want to call it. I'm just arguing that is healthier to truly coexist and that there are implications to our choices that, at least in part, serve to define the world in which we live.
Its more something one individual bestows on other individuals. That a group can be said to be doing it or not is simply an aggregate description of the actions of individuals in the group.
> And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"?
Whether acceptance, tolerance, or intolerance or the default state, there is still utility in all three distinct terms to describe states that exist in the world.
Well, I think, practically speaking, it would be exceedingly difficult to think someone an idiot or outright insane, yet not have that impact the way we treat them.
And, it would be hard to separate a belief to which someone adheres his/her life from that person; and instead just judge that belief insane without judging the person the same.
More specifically, I think the degree to which we can separate the two are based on people's apparent adherence to their beliefs. So, the more they veil their beliefs, the more acceptable they are in the eyes of others who don't share them and would otherwise think them insane.
So, again, I don't think this is true tolerance.