There’s no such thing, it’s as much of a myth as meritocracy and it’s intellectually dishonest to live a life on the fence while claiming to be enlightened because of it. You are always picking a side, the choice is whether you pick a side implicitly or explicitly. Sitting on the fence is an implicit choice to support the stronger side, because you’re choosing not to give your power (whether that’s a little or a lot) to the weaker side clear in the knowledge that they’re more likely to be overcome without your support.
You believe that to be tolerant is to turn a blind eye, you believe that to be tolerant is to say “that isn’t impacting me so I’m staying out of it” which is implicitly supporting the stronger side, because you have an opportunity to use your own power to support the weaker side and you choose not to.
People will always have a difference of opinion, and certainly you may wish to choose to support the stronger side in an argument, and that’s not inherently wrong, but it’s important to understand that by explicitly supporting neither side you are implicitly supporting the stronger side.
Imagine that you’re sitting on a literal fence that separates two groups of people, a weak side and a strong side: the strong side are trying to break down the fence to attack the weaker side, while the weaker side try to repair the fence to protect themselves because they do not wish to fight: are you noble and superior if you remain sitting on the fence, watching as the stronger side inevitably break down the fence and attack the weaker side?
Person A wears a red hat. Person A has been bullied all their life because of their red hat. They have started a campaign to stop bullying against people with red hats. They have lobbied the government and the government will now introduce laws against bullying people with red hats. The consequence is that Person A is no longer bullied.
Person B bullies person A for wearing a red hat. Person B hates people with red hats. Person B spends a lot of time tormenting those with red hats, bullying them. After bullying people with red hats is banned, Person B can no longer bully Person A and he is frustrated because he hates people with red hats.
Person A wishes to live a life without bullying that would allow him to live in peace, Person B wishes to live a life where he can torment others. They are not different flavours of the same icecream, or tracks on an album, they’re fundamentally different: yes, they are views held by humans but one is a desire to hurt others for his own pleasure and the other is a desire to live without hurt. You can pretend that we live in some sort of vacuum where consequences aren’t relevant because perhaps you’re privileged enough that you don’t have to experience hurtful consequences of others “viewpoints” but for those that do experience those consequences (or people with empathy for those that do) it’s not possible to ignore reality.
Essentially, the conclusion of all of this is… take a position, have a spine. If you believe something, stand up for it, if you don’t believe in something, reject it, but don’t identify as enlightened because you’ve conned yourself into believing you can opt out of basic social behaviour – you can’t! Support isn’t an abstract concept, it’s a real consequential action that you are engaging in whether you choose to or not. You either support something or you don’t, whether that support is implicit or explicit is up to you.