Do you consider yourself "tolerant"?

[King]

No.

Like any true social liberal, I judge people on actions and character not outward appearances like race, gender, orientation, religion, etc; and I am completely intolerant of people who are obvious morons, a-holes, and crooks, regardless of race, gender, orientation, religion, etc.; and I believe there should be no special protections that allows for people to be obvious morons, a-holes, and crooks because of their race, gender, orientation, religion, etc.

Tolerance is bigotry with a smiley face.

[Antonio the Sixth]

^^^^ This exactly.

[Boston Bread]

In the usual sense of the word, yes. In RL I "tolerate" even intolerant beliefs, in sense that I'm not really concerned with those beliefs when I'm socializing.

I refuse to overthink my answer.

[TNF]

Tolerance is liberal bullsh**t. I'm not for 'tolerating' differences among 'conflicting groups of people', I'm for one group of people (the working class) defeating in totality the enemy and taking power, and in doing so showing no mercy to those who have enslaved them.

[Mr. Smith]

Short Answer: Absolutely

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No. We finally found the answer to all of life's important questions and we have nothing to learn from those who persist in thinking or acting differently than we do. They must conform to our enlightened ways or be smashed under the wheels of truth, progress, and perfect teeth.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be honest, not really. Even though diversity is something I intrinsically value to an extent that even other 'multiculturalist' types sometimes find a little weird, there are some things for which I have a pretty strong distaste that I know on some level are really none of my business. I consider this a flaw, but am not really working on it, which is also a flaw.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I certainly try to be. Tolerance is a pretty weak thing (largely because it is implicitly and inevitably conditional: tolerance can always be withdrawn) but it's an important starting point. When it comes down to it, you see, I would rather not be part of a baying mob of any kind.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I find myself in 100% agreement with King.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I find myself in 100% agreement with King.

He's one of the best posters here, so this should be no surprise.

[Beet]

No.

Like any true social liberal, I judge people on actions and character not outward appearances like race, gender, orientation, religion, etc; and I am completely intolerant of people who are obvious morons, a-holes, and crooks, regardless of race, gender, orientation, religion, etc.; and I believe there should be no special protections that allows for people to be obvious morons, a-holes, and crooks because of their race, gender, orientation, religion, etc.

Tolerance is bigotry with a smiley face.

Well when you put it like that, I can't help but agree with you.

There is one other consideration- humanism. Even the worst people do deserve some consideration.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I support all people as human beings with complicated motivations and desires, but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate outright ignorance and weird foibles (same as I wouldn't others to unquestionably accept my own failures and foibles)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Tolerance is a mediocre word with mediocre connotations. Whoever decided to call their deal "tolerance" was someone of questionable wisdom. You don't get yourself the best PR by plugging "tolerance".

[Lambsbread]

Voted yes because I figured you meant tolerant in terms of race, gender, etc. In that case, of course I am.

But I still do judge people on their character, as King said, and I can't stand people who have stupid opinions. So no, I'm not very tolerant of those who say and do stupid things. I guess that makes me a true SJW?

[politicus]

One should not be 100% tolerant of all sorts of behaviour, especially not from those that are themselves intolerant of others, but on the other hand a high level of tolerance for the opinions, oddities and quirks of others is a prerequisite for civilization and a truly free society - a life and life attitude is preferable.

I am not nearly as tolerant as I would like to be, but I still consider tolerance an ideal in most contexts.

[DC Al Fine]

Tolerant, sure. Accepting, eh...

[Redalgo]

Generally speaking, yes. I think everyone deserves respect, inclusion, dignity, to be empathized with, and to get some form of unconditional love. Every person also seems valuable, having untapped potential and meaningful contributions to make for the betterment of society. Some behave in ways that make it sensible to stop being quite so forgiving of them but to an extent they can always remain tolerable. This need not imply letting them pose an imminent threat of violence to others or forcing oneself to stay amidst unpleasant company, of course. The question should not be read into as demanding an all or nothing kind of response!

[Brewer]

I accidentally voted Yes, but I am in complete agreement with King.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Of course, because I "show willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." 

You can be an ***hole and be tolerant. 

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

tolerant, as in not exonerating those who don't agree with me? Obviously yes.
tolerant, as in being a total social liberal who never agrees to a law that could possibly be viewed as discriminatory? Obviously no.