Well first of all, I don't believe "tolerance" is useful for evaluating historical epochs as if from a position of absolute truth. It is mainly a construct, whi

Well first of all, I don't believe "tolerance" is useful for evaluating historical epochs as if from a position of absolute truth. It is mainly a construct, which rapidly falls apart at further inspection: at most something which arbitrarily occurs towards a variety of human expression at specific times in specific places. But above all, what we call "tolerance" today is hardly applicable to societies that practiced slavery, considered women property, didn't even have writing etc. It is barely more than a (slightly intolerant) dogwhistle, a "look at me, I like flubber" if you like. The same actually applies to the terms "forward" or "backward"; we are steeped in a belief that originated in the zeitgeist of intellectual Europe in the early 1800s (Comte et al) that society always moves forward, i.e. to a better place than before. It was supposed to be a secular set of objective values applied to the historical progression of epochs, but it has turned out to be as arbitrary as any other that touts as superior and eternal the finicky values of their own specific time and place. When I use the term it mostly just represents the arrow of time, with no further valuation. Many people feel like this kind of reasoning will cause them to lose their moorings, but it is really the only viable antidote to the ubiquitous self-righteousness that is ultimately putting us all at risk. It is not like nihilism, because it leads to the conclusion that it is better to have an understanding for, and come to terms with other people, be they from times gone by, with beliefs that may seem strange, or from the other side of the globe.