Another interesting example of tolerance with regards to victimization is that a lot of outrage can be sparked as a result of refusing the mantle of victimhood.
For example, shortly after I had joined the BBS, I was relating some of my experiences in a topic about sexual assault, where I had explained that I had to come to terms with what had happened to me by acknowledging that it was unjust, but not allowing myself to identify as a victim, that doing so would be letting it define me too much. So I became engrossed with some CBT and martial arts to work through it. To say that my account did not go over well would be a titanic understatement. A few very vocal people complained that my alternate framing took away from others’ accounts, that talking about ME being raped was somehow victim-blaming other people who had experiences of that sort but felt differently about them, and - this is a big one - cries of “no true Scotsman”, that my feelings about what happened rendered my account illegitimate. That nobody who had that really happen to them would feel as I did, so they felt entitled to deny that it did happen. That is a pretty common tactic for when discussion of social issues appears to have gone off-script from what is popular in contemporary activism. It’s something I encounter quite often in topics about advocacy for the homeless, gender nonconformists, indigenous rights, DIY economics & government, etc.
How this works in the larger sphere is that victimization and restitution are often vaguely colonialist. The centrist position is to recognize oppression and fix it by means of assimilation, while failing to consider that this process of assimilation is the very much a goal of imperialism, and profoundly disempowering to those who want no part of it. Such “reparations” disincentivize acceptance of a victim position, and come off as patronizing.
Being offered citizenship, job, money, family, and a voice in ways that front for fundamentally oppressive culture (such as Euro-colonial culture) might be better than outright death or slavery, but it is still an erasure, a negation that conciliatory parties refuse to take responsibility for. Liberalism makes concessions, but ultimately does not tolerate opting out of this, and us being empowered to have our own kinds of jobs, neighborhoods, shelter, money, etc. In some ways violent fascists are easier to deal with, because their intolerance is transparent, to others and themselves - and when they get payback, they know why. Centrists tend to have tolerance in sentiment, but not in principle and action, because they do not truly have or believe in an egalitarian perspective. So they always need to appease others who have “real power”, and when as an oppressed person or group you refuse their “help” - they blame you. That kind of intolerance is a lot more slippery, quite difficult to confront and expose compared to those who mean obvious harm.
