You've strawmanned the entire crux of your OP. That's not a great move. I'll try clear this up a little, from my perspective:

I suppose the super 'woke' types — unimportant

I would say anyone with eyes would agree that there is a 'too far left'. It's not serious to suggest otherwise, so that's fine.

Right wingers say they/we are just as intolerant because we don't accept their intolerance, lol — unimportant

No, they don't. They only say the first part. The second part is contingent on several things; most of all, whether what's being discussed is some form of intolerance. It usually isn't, in the 'moral' sense. We are all most intolerant of the world around us. Most things aren't what we want to be doing, or choose to be doing and we make great efforts to ensure our intolerance is maintained by not coming into contact with things we wont tolerate. I think that is uncontroversial, if a little under-observed. Now, something interesting is to figure out when "intolerance" becomes 'problematic'. Generally speaking, that's when human rights are being violated - but then, many human rights are also contingent - some (including hte UN i believe) consider internet access a human right. But taking the internet from your misbehaving child is not a form of human rights abuse, in the vast majority of minds.

My experience with the majority of right-wingers i've ever had an actual conversation with is that the things they don't tolerate are generally the aggressive, uncharitable behaviours of others. This is absolutely laden with access for bigots, granted. But absolutely so is the opposite line of trying you best to accept the aggressive, uncharitable behaviours of others as leftists like to do (there's a huge amount of social currency to getting a 'dunk' on the left although I acknowledge we have to be talking about the 'leftist' contingent and not just 'those on the left'. I'm in that camp and I find leftist thinking abhorrent). I think the issue is that in conversation right wingers don't frame their "intolerance" as reactionary - leftists do, which gives it an air of legitimacy on its face that might not be warranted - equally, the disparaging of general right-wing thinking is probably also unwarranted as it usually doens't speak to bigotries, but policy considerations.

Poisoning the well, refusal to engage and immediate labelling of views with words that justify aggresion or violence is rife on the left. These, to me, speak to a pretty intense intolerance - sometimes, of their own. There is some loose empirical data on this.

The upsurge of leftist political violence in the last two years or so seems to suggest that the left is more likely to resort to violence, albeit this is a very recent development as compared to right-wing violence. THe problem is this reflects the same disaparity as IPV does: Women (left) are more likely to engage in violence - but right (men) are more likely to kill more people per event. But stand-alone assassination attempts or successes appear to be a left-wing phenomenon.

If people could just stop for a moment, lay out their goals before speaking to their opponents, things would go much better. My experience is that the right will do this - and be respectful - where the left will not. And are usually objectively wrong about how they've characterised the point they're objecting to.

I suppose the question is what you are intolerant of, not whether you are intolerant. — unimportant

Once one sets out what they mean by "intolerance" and what counts as "more intolerant," the question becomes answerable. For example, if we take "intolerant of X" to mean "does not allow X," and we measure relative intolerance quantitatively, then we merely need to count up the different things that each group is intolerant of. Of course a quantitative analysis will probably be insufficient, but you get the idea.

A core problem on the left is actually an equivocation where they want "tolerance" to mean "acceptance." Once one recognizes that tolerance does not mean acceptance, and that tolerance implies dislike or aversion, much of the muddle coming from the left dries up. The critique from the right is basically a request that the person on the left actually survey the things they are intolerant of, instead of pretending that they are "tolerant" of everything and that it is merely a matter of the tolerant vs. the intolerant.

Tolerance is a term used in many different contexts ranging from what is permitted in intimate situations to legislation that has the power to limit one's freedom. Debate about what is permissible in the latter sense concerns constitutions and the limits to state power. The right to privacy and the establishment of religion is in tension with the demand for equality under the law in the U.S.

The idea of a right wing versus a left wing is different if the aim is to deconstruct the institutions that permit that dialogue to continue. There is that great scene in Vasily Grossman's book, Life and Fate where the Nazi interrogator tells the Old Bolshevik they are spiritual brothers in wanting to rewrite the language of the world.

Amongst the charges made as to who is the real nihilist, this distinction between the worldviews is important. To ignore it is to sleepwalk into history, to borrow a phrase.

Nice.

I wonder what qualifies as a moderate leftist. Here in Australia someone like Biden would be seen as a centrist or possibly a conservative.

I have conservative (not right wing) friends who are certainly more forgiving of people's foibles and differences than some of my left friends, who seem to reach for morality every time they disagree with someone.

Tolerance is a terrible word. To be 'tolerated' sounds judgemental.

Quentin Crisp said something I have often agreed with. Tolerance does not create acceptance. Boredom does. When people experience and are exposed to certain lifestyles or people again and again, the fear or resentment often lifts and what was formerly perceived as divergent just becomes another shade of grey in our lives. I suspect this will happen with trans issues over time.

I keep seeing "right winger" as "right whinger".

There's something very deep in that.

It is like saying 'you are intolerant because you do not tolerate racism' — unimportant

Yep.

Tolerance is often insufficient. It will not do to simply tolerate divergence while still despising it. The further step is to accept divergence. We accept multiculturalism, LGBQTI+, disability and so on as aspects of human variation. Racism, we don't accept, but tolerate; that is, we refrain from denying them civil rights or using coercion against them so long as they abide by the law. This is quite different from accepting racism itself. Acceptance applies to people’s identities, capacities, and ways of life; tolerance applies, in limited fashion, to people whose doctrines we reject.

The grammar of tolerance and acceptance is context-dependent. Acceptance cannot apply to doctrines that deny the very conditions for ethical coexistence. Coherent belief revision requires distinguishing between beliefs about human variation (to accept) and beliefs about harmful ideologies (to interpret but not accept).

The left doesn’t conflate tolerance and acceptance; it simply applies each concept to its appropriate domain. Flattening them into a single “more vs. less tolerant” scale misses the ethical point.

Tolerance is a terrible word. To be 'tolerated' sounds judgemental. — Tom Storm

It is judgmental. A society accepts slavery and then stops doing that.

That is a different cultural war from curtailing expressions of personal identity.

The reality is that some people are intolerant. That's independent of whether you're left or right. What is 'intolerant'? A person who is narrow minded, bigoted, or who favors prejudice over learning. This can lead such people to actively try to hurt you emotionally or physically to get their way.

When some people get into politics too far, they start to think 'their side' is more intelligent, empathic, and generally superior than the other. This leads to intolerance. You start getting more narrow minded and thoughts like, "The right are full of bigots" or "The left are full of morons". In reality, it is YOU becoming a moron. Ego is one of the greatest destroyers of an intelligent and open mind.

I talk to everyone. I've spoken to racists, homophobes, sexists, genderists, and people who think the other side should all just die. I've spoken with sexual reprobates, socially inept people, arrogant demeaning people, wealthy, middle class, and poor people.

Does that mean I accept or agree with everything they say? No. Do I put up with rude behavior while I'm talking to them? Not at all. But I do seek to understand them, I don't dismiss anything they say at face value, and I try figure out why and how they've come to have the world view that they do. That is tolerance. The ability to live, work with, talk with, and get by with in daily life without an intent to cause the other unnecessary harm.

My advice is to realize those who claim, "The left/right are X" are usually emotionally compromised people who have fallen for an ideology they can no longer be flexible on. This doesn't just apply to politics, but to all ideological groups. Intolerant behavior that would be chastised if one was alone, can find equally narrow minded people who seek to convince you of how superior, wonderful, and good you are if you join their side. Beware not to become one of them, as it is a trap every single person can fall into.

Here in Australia — Tom Storm

Speaking of which, it is an aside but, why is Sky News super right-wing and even conspiracy pandering, yet in the UK it is pretty even. Well I can answer that myself as I looked it up the other day - because the Australian arm is still owned by infamous tabloid giant Rupert Murdoch yet the UK one was bought out, by someone else, who I forgot now but certainly more even handed in their writing.

Tolerance is often insufficient. It will not do to simply tolerate divergence while still despising it. The further step is to accept divergence. We accept multiculturalism, LGBQTI+, disability and so on as aspects of human variation. Racism, we don't accept, but tolerate; that is, we refrain from denying them civil rights or using coercion against them so long as they abide by the law. This is quite different from accepting racism itself. Acceptance applies to people’s identities, capacities, and ways of life; tolerance applies, in limited fashion, to people whose doctrines we reject. — Banno

Ok I see the term tolerance is problematic but kind of part of the question, but the following replies have cleared up the conflation.

The original accusation was clearly a low effort 'gotcha' by the right anyway, not one to be taken to be serious.

I have no idea what AmadeusD means by me strawmanning myself.

The quote I made is the stawman that I want to unpick.

Although it isn't serious it can lead to a serious debate on what the Left accepts (shall we use that instead of tolerance now?) and what the Right accepts? There seems to be a bit more jockeying over Right wing vs Conservative - I would see them as one and the same for the purposes of the discussion?

It would be those who you would commonly expect online to be complaining about 'woke Leftists' ruining the country. I happen to agree with most of what they are saying about wokism and cancel culture which creates a terrible landscape where people are afraid to have open debate.

That is why I touched on that in the OP and said I would also stand against that.

I am more thinking about your average Left leaning person who might enjoy David Pakman for instance. He too is against what I mention above. Sam Harris being another good example of public faces in the kind of sphere I am discussing.

I would say ideally a 'good Leftist' is one that is accepting of others while now becoming domineering about rooting out 'evil' where there may be none just for their own need to feel important.

The Right who criticise the Left for this and the Left that do it I would say are 2 sides of the same coin. The Right will call anything not Trumpist/MAGAist as woke nonsense and the wokey Left will likewise try and shutdown any discussion about legitimate issues such for example if any men want to gather to discuss issues they can often be out picketing as it is 'patriarchy'.

I would add that a moderate Conservative or Leftist could have thoughtful and intelligent discussion.

I suppose it is like average religious people vs. fundamentalists. All religions get along side by side in cities from day to day but the tiny minorities of extremists are the ones that are most visible and cause the most trouble. Though in this case it is far more than a tiny minority on the Left and Right who are the troublemakers.

The left and right are mutually intolerant because they are motivated by incompatible ideas of freedom. For the right, individual freedom takes precedence over social freedoms (i.e. opposition to free-market regulations). For the left, social freedoms surpass individual (hence anti-discrimination laws, which essentially sanctify or at least codify tolerance).

An orientation that prioritizes social freedom still includes a real residuum of individual freedom (for example, what is not explicitly prohibited is allowed). But an orientation that prioritizes individual freedom inherently destroys social freedom, because the residuum in that case consists only of what remains after private discretion has run its course ("trickle-down economics" of freedom).

So the left implicitly allows for the existence of the right, they simply require them to constrain their acquisitive behaviours within the limits of social functionality. The right makes no such concession. In Kantian terms, the philosophy of the left is universalizable, the right, not.

"Both sides" should always be questioned: there's nothing about political wings that entails everything is always symmetrical.

And things change over time; sure there have been times, and places, where possibly the left was more extreme including intolerance.

But right now, in the western world, there's a clear "winner". What used to be the far right here in the UK has become the mainstream, so Reform, and (to an only slightly less extent), the Tories have a platform almost entirely on hating brown people (or "non-indigenous" as has become the common term), muslims, trans etc.

Let alone the US. I mean, in the last 24 hours we had Trump ranting about Somali people being "garbage" that are all unwelcome in the US. What on earth is the left saying that is supposedly equivalent?

Yes, it is true. Both sides often devolve into common bigotry when faced with thoughts and words that oppose their own, that it’s difficult to tear them apart. At any rate, they both want power, they both want to use the state in order to benefit people they prefer, and as such they both resemble a criminal organization.

But this is a box-shaped conception of politics, relevant only to choosing where to sit in the National Assembly. There are no wings and no one who thinks and speaks politically is guilty by such threadbare associations.

Pardon me if my last response was rude.

Rather than proclaim what is happening in my country, I will put forward a question. What Crisp is saying does reflect what is is happening here but is actively being opposed by efforts that want to have power over the next generation. Thus, all the very real dismantling of institutions that preserve the present status quo.

Is there a similar struggle going on in the Down Under?

Pardon me if my last response was rude. — Paine

No worries. I wasn't entirely sure what you were saying, so I didn't come to any conclusions.

What Crisp is saying does reflect what is is happening here but is actively being opposed by efforts that want to have power over the next generation. — Paine

Indeed. In Crisp's time, the conservative mainstream rigorously controlled the narrative already, so there weren’t safeguards to dismantle. I think boredom will probably win. But who knows?

Is there a similar struggle going on in the Down Under? — Paine

Not really. But I don't follow my culture very closely. Our main problem is a tendency towards neoliberalism and the notion that the market should be the arbiter of culture and society. Our culture war is in slow motion compared to yours, which seems to be a cold civil war when viewed by outsiders. In our country voting is compulsory, and younger people with more progressive views seem to make up much of the voting block, so reactionary views really only find support among the older, the 'crazies' and country folk.

I define "tolerance" as how much disagreeable activity someone will put up with. It's not a particularly kind gesture to tell someone you'll tolerate them, but it's not as bad as rejecting and not as good as accepting. It's somewhere in between. .

To say I "tolerate" homosexualty, for example, means I'd rather it not be, but I'll endure it.

With that understanding, does the right put up with more behavior it finds objectionable than the left? Maybe, but that might just speak to changes from conservative values to more liberal ones and the right having to accept the existence of what they disagree with.

So then the next question: Is the left more embracing of (not just tolerant of) change than the right? I'd think so, which is why the word "conserve" attaches to the right and "progress" attaches to the left.

One embraces change, the other less so. Who is more tolerant of each other? It seems there's sufficient polarization to say neither are terribly tolerant of one another to the extent they're each willing to peacefully endure one another.

There is also a question unasked, and that is whether tolerance is a virtue? Ought we let our neighbors who don't adhere to our moral interpretations endure our silence, or must we speak. up?

The left and right are mutually intolerant because they are motivated by incompatible ideas of freedom. For the right, individual freedom takes precedence over social freedoms (i.e. opposition to free-market regulations). For the left, social freedoms surpass individual (hence anti-discrimination laws, which essentially sanctify or at least codify tolerance).

An orientation that prioritizes social freedom still includes a real residuum of individual freedom (for example, what is not explicitly prohibited is allowed). But an orientation that prioritizes individual freedom inherently destroys social freedom, because the residuum in that case consists only of what remains after private discretion has run its course ("trickle-down economics" of freedom).

So the left implicitly allows for the existence of the right, they simply require them to constrain their acquisitive behaviours within the limits of social functionality. The right makes no such concession. In Kantian terms, the philosophy of the left is universalizable, the right, not. — Pantagruel

That seems a good roundup of Right and Left.

I think I want to get more to the nub of my question.

Could it be said of an outsider Alien race looking in that the Left's policies were more tolerant than the Right's?

I am thinking of something like the Starfleet Federation from Star Trek right now. They are enlightened Left aren't they? Isn't this vision of interaction rationally more appealing than the selfish every man for himself, let the strongest survive, of the Right?

Yes, I think it follows from that political characterization that the left has a "fundamentally tolerant" nature, versus the right. If you don't think that conservative politics struggle not to appear heartless, you're probably in an ever-shrinking minority.

What Crisp is saying does reflect what is is happening here but is actively being opposed by efforts that want to have power over the next generation. Thus, all the very real dismantling of institutions that preserve the present status quo. — Paine

That read doesn't seem to align with right/left categories. Dismantling generally occurs on the far left and the far right, and not in the center. Generally speaking, cries of "intolerance!" come from those who are trying to shift the Overton Window in one direction or another.

And I think an underlying problem is that everyone, from left to right, is laboring under centuries-old rejections of coherent moral realism. So we get a vacillation between moralizing and assertions that morality doesn't really exist. Moral claims need .

That read doesn't seem to align with right/left categories. — Leontiskos

I agree. Crisp is pointing to a process of accommodation where the source of annoyance for whoever tends to recede into the background of other annoying things.

So we get a vacillation between moralizing and assertions that morality doesn't really exist. — Leontiskos

I was trying to draw a broad sharp line between those who support institutions even if they often suck and those who want to shake the Etch a Sketch upside down. I am not aware of any of the former kind who subscribe to the purely emotional view you propose to be a significant factor in political discourse.