>> Extreme bias on the part of the author. Also, the statement is objectively untrue. It appears that the author has opinions on hot-button issues, calls his op

>> Extreme bias on the part of the author. Also, the statement is objectively untrue. It appears that the author has opinions on hot-button issues, calls his opinions "tolerant," and proceeds to wonder why poor countries disagree with him. I think the bias is equating "tolerant" with good and "intolerant" with bad, which I think you're doing too. In my experience, that implicit bias is pretty common in the language of Americans, especially liberals, but even conservatives (who would understand being called "intolerant" is a reproach). > What other people do with their bodies is not a hot-button issue. You either accept it and are tolerant, or you don’t and you are intolerant. I don't think it's that simple. Are you "tolerant"? Are you tolerant of people shitting on the sidewalk? I doubt it, but it's still falls under the rubric of "something other people do with their bodies." In actual practice "being tolerant" is actually defined as subscribing to a very particular set of social positions. It's one of those language tricks liberals seem particularly prone to use for manipulation.