> That's just another way of saying "my opinion is acceptable, and theirs isn't".
Is it? According to who? After all, anybody can say "A is just another way of saying B" (especially if they ignore the differences), but it doesn't make it true. To wit: the differences I cited prove that there are differences.
> The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with.
Historically speaking, accepting violence against minorities, and the rhetoric which fosters it, has not "worked" for the minorities.
Medical advice was quite different between nations. Doctors and chief epidemiologists gave their advice, sometimes opposite advice to others, grounded in scientific beliefs that the individual held at the time. One of the biggest controversy and debates was the effectiveness of non-N95 surgical mask against airborne virus particles. Different studies gave different results, and depending on which culture, country and professional you asked you got different medical advice. It only got more muddled when it came to outdoor vs indoor.
That is just one example. It is well known in medical research that culture has a major impact on research findings and should not be overlooked. What is correct or incorrect is not obvious in a international context, and what help people in one place can be directly harmful in an other.
Is it? According to who? After all, anybody can say "A is just another way of saying B" (especially if they ignore the differences), but it doesn't make it true. To wit: the differences I cited prove that there are differences.
> The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with.
Historically speaking, accepting violence against minorities, and the rhetoric which fosters it, has not "worked" for the minorities.