Yeah, this line of argument is a perfect example of the "Motte and Bailey" fallacy. The structure of this argument works just as well if you replace "intolerance" with "segregationist" or "misogynist". The only takeaway I have from this argument is "it's easier to condemn things which you disagree with". There isn't any discussion of whether the intolerant action is actually intolerant or harmful.
---
Digression, this is a pretty audacious way to minimize Apartheid.
> South African whites and South African blacks ... So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences.
Every single human conflict can be described as "small differences" because humans are very similar to each other. Also, it's harder to be in conflict with people far away from you.
---
Digression, this is a pretty audacious way to minimize Apartheid.
> South African whites and South African blacks ... So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences.
Every single human conflict can be described as "small differences" because humans are very similar to each other. Also, it's harder to be in conflict with people far away from you.