C99 is a nonpartisan open discussion platform. We've all heard that time and time again, but what does that mean?

Well, let me try to dissect its most basic tenet, tolerance.

Definition of "tolerance" according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina

>2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own

b : the act of allowing something : toleration

3 : the allowable deviation from a standard especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece

4a(1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (such as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure developed a tolerance to painkillers also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen

(2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor
b : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food

The bolding is mine.

Is it possible to have a civil nonpartisan open discussion board without reverence to tolerance by the participants? Yeah I guess you could but it would depend upon the definition of "civil", wouldn't it?

We are again entering into the political silly season, it's a little less than two years away and yet here we are. In the past, on this board, there has appeared a rift among the members. That rift has basically taken the form of those that believe in working within the current political process and those that believe it is a waste of time. That rift, from my point of view, is unfortunate because it highlights just how difficult it is to bring together those that lean left of the political divide, let alone bringing together the 99% from across the political spectrum. It goes to show how deeply divided we are.

I do agree that both sides of this rift are valid in their beliefs, there are solid points in both camps. But what I don't agree with is the occasional shaming that rears it's head in the discussions. And in the past I've seen it on both sides. My definition of shaming is the denigration of other users because of their political stance. That denigration can be both subtle and overt. Shaming others for their political views is not an act of tolerance. We are here to allow folks the space to believe what they will, and telling or assuming folks are wrong for what they believe is, in effect, the antithesis of this site's prime principle.

So, as we enter into another presidential election cycle, let us please be tolerant of each other. If folks want to vote and work within the system, that's OK. If folks don't want to vote and wish to work outside of the system, that too is OK. What is not OK is telling them, either outright or by innuendo, that their political beliefs are wrong. Be tolerant of each other's beliefs, just accept that they have a different point of view and leave it at that. That's what this space is for.

Let us show that we are different. Please allow adherents of both sides of this issue to believe what they will.

Tolerance. Please.