> Alexander's point is precisely that tolerance might be more complex then it appears. That is a patently obvious claim for which anecdotes appearing to suppor

> Alexander's point is precisely that tolerance might be more complex then it appears. That is a patently obvious claim for which anecdotes appearing to support that conclusion - but implying another - are provided. Why do you think he chose those examples? How is tolerance more complex? What should be done to change how we approach it, if anything? Put another way, it’s a valid rational argument against the status quo, but without any alternatives suggested, it is a purposeless one - we all know we could do better at anything.