I don't think anyone is suggesting that we need to tolerate aggression, or that we must entertain stupidities. The main message and lesson to take from this pos

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we need to tolerate aggression, or that we must entertain stupidities. The main message and lesson to take from this post is rather to not let the stupidities stand in the way of learning. The point is that if you pick any complicated topic, and try to learn about it by listening to proponents at random, 19 times out of 20 [1], you're going to land on a stupid explanation that doesn't even make sense. If your goal is to learn [2] then you should continue keeping an open mind until you land on that 1 out of 20, higher-quality version of the thing, and then give that one a chance. If the highest-quality version of the thing makes no sense, then you may be justified in discounting the idea. [3] This notion might seem obvious to some people, but from my experience, I can say that not everyone finds this obvious. [1] I just made up these numbers for demonstration purposes. [2] There are other goals in life too (eg.: surviving, escaping oppression, etc), but this is one possible goal and it's the one we're focusing on in this context. [3] But also, statistically speaking, it's very likely that we just don't understand the thing, so this is why I often like to say that one should be more skeptical of one's own understanding than of others (again, in contexts where the main goal is learning).