Can Evil and Tolerance coexist?

-By Best in Moderation

So there have been a lot of discussions lately on how we can have a civil and respectful nation, discussion, and forum that allows for diversity of thought and disagreement, without resorting to labels and stereotypes. I think these are valuable discussions. And yet we always seem to keep hanging on one fundamental issue: can "Evil" exist in a world/space where tolerance is valued?

I ask this partially for myself, because I do believe evil exists, and that people commit, enable and support evil deeds and those who do them. As such, I find myself often at odds with those who would rather not have people labeled as such, because it is a discussion killer, often an element of disunity and so overused as to lose all meaning except as a partisan bludgeon.

How then is it possible to have both aa civil and rational discussion and believe in something like good/evil?

So far, I've had little luck. I cannot fathom why people would accept those who commit, enable or support evil and those who act in such a fashion, and why they resist the idea that they are indeed attaching themselves to evil. And others cannot accept that I would label someone as such simply for supporting someone who commits evil acts, because they are more than their support of that person.

I would like to postulate that it is entirely possible to be multiple things. Yes, you can be a good father, a good neighbour, an intelligent person, a polite and kind person, and still support an evil person and his acts. What does that make you, however? Does committing that evil act or supporting that evil person have zero, some, or total impact on how others view you and who you are as a person?

What power has evil? All encompassing, tainting, none?

I personally seem to lean on the side that those who commit or support evil, despite other qualities, are evil, even if only to a degree. I simply don't think you can "balance" evil by otherwise good acts. The only way to remove the label of evil, in my view, is to stop committing, enabling, or supporting it.

Could we discuss this? Are there other ways of thinking about this and are you willing to share them? And could we do so in a way where we understand that we are trying to understand one another, not trying to win an argument or prove one ideology or way of thinking superior?