JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
Our popular society seems to have embraced this notion that we all must tolerate everything except for the intolerant themsleves, these intolerant being those that do not tolerate the approved groups as defined by the reigning tolerance Nazis. Though that set of thinking hasn't been rolled out to all of society yet in regards to all private associations (like polygamy), all religions (like Thugee cults), and all forms of interpersonal behavior (like unprovoked violence), our popular culture is firmly in the grip of these tolerance Nazis I think of as the 'Militant Tolerancy' or MT for short.
The only limit to the scope of MT tolerance is that group labeled as 'intolerant' and they alone. This is because tolerance of the intolerant would seem to make tolerance of all, as Karl Popper observed, vulnerable to the intolerant, who, given enough time, could eventually triumph over and remove the MT from reign, so the MT is unable to tolerate that which is not tolerant of the MT's list of those that must be tolerated. Sound confusing? Yes, because it is irrational and self-contradictory in the extreme.
So not only is the MT self-contradictory, but it is fundamentally irrational, and the list of what should be tolerated becomes arbitrary, for if you are intolerant of anything, say polygamy, then you are being intolerant, and the MT might one day no longer permit that. The day will likely come when you will find some thing you are unalterably intolerant of has now transitioned into the MT's list of mandatory embraced tolerance, YOU will then become labeled as 'intolerant' and the guns of the MT will be aimed at you, no matter how tolerant you have been of other previous untolerated people.
Maybe you were totally tolerant of all races, gays, polygamists, Muslims and other religions, but you remain intolerant of, say, people who eat lab-grown human flesh, or otherwise known as cannibals. Suppose you can accept canibalism as something people do in private, since no one is directly harmed you think, but cant tolerate it being on lunch menus for kids for example and that sort of thing. Eventually over time, the MT pronounces cannibalism to be something that must suddenly be universally tolerated or else you will be labeled an 'intolerant' person.
Now you have to embrace cannibalism as normal, healthy and just as good as eating anything else or risk being shunned by friends and family, or maybe even prosecuted and jailed because you dared to speak in an intolerant way about something that MUST now suddenly be tolerated, as has been stated here in regard to people that say bad things about Islam. Obama DOJ says anti-Muslim comments could put you in jail - Arlington Political Buzz | Examiner.com
The ambiguity of what must be tolerated and it being a dynamic list of arbitrarily chosen items and categories makes our new militant tolerancy more heinous and inhumane than any other militant orthodoxy that has come and gone before. At least with the Nazis you knew if you were Jewish you were screwed and you had the choice to flee any country they took over, and if you had an approved pedigree at least you could feel safe, but todays militant tolerance fascists don't give you even that much courtesy. What is tolerable for you to be intolerant of today is never guaranteed to remain safe as a tolerated intolerance into the unknown future.
I think I would rather live under the harshest communist dictatorship in forced labor in a fucking salt mine, than to continue to live under the reign of the current PC tolerance fascism. At least you could be free to despise anything you wanted to in a salt mine and not get punished for it.
The only limit to the scope of MT tolerance is that group labeled as 'intolerant' and they alone. This is because tolerance of the intolerant would seem to make tolerance of all, as Karl Popper observed, vulnerable to the intolerant, who, given enough time, could eventually triumph over and remove the MT from reign, so the MT is unable to tolerate that which is not tolerant of the MT's list of those that must be tolerated. Sound confusing? Yes, because it is irrational and self-contradictory in the extreme.
So not only is the MT self-contradictory, but it is fundamentally irrational, and the list of what should be tolerated becomes arbitrary, for if you are intolerant of anything, say polygamy, then you are being intolerant, and the MT might one day no longer permit that. The day will likely come when you will find some thing you are unalterably intolerant of has now transitioned into the MT's list of mandatory embraced tolerance, YOU will then become labeled as 'intolerant' and the guns of the MT will be aimed at you, no matter how tolerant you have been of other previous untolerated people.
Maybe you were totally tolerant of all races, gays, polygamists, Muslims and other religions, but you remain intolerant of, say, people who eat lab-grown human flesh, or otherwise known as cannibals. Suppose you can accept canibalism as something people do in private, since no one is directly harmed you think, but cant tolerate it being on lunch menus for kids for example and that sort of thing. Eventually over time, the MT pronounces cannibalism to be something that must suddenly be universally tolerated or else you will be labeled an 'intolerant' person.
Now you have to embrace cannibalism as normal, healthy and just as good as eating anything else or risk being shunned by friends and family, or maybe even prosecuted and jailed because you dared to speak in an intolerant way about something that MUST now suddenly be tolerated, as has been stated here in regard to people that say bad things about Islam. Obama DOJ says anti-Muslim comments could put you in jail - Arlington Political Buzz | Examiner.com
The ambiguity of what must be tolerated and it being a dynamic list of arbitrarily chosen items and categories makes our new militant tolerancy more heinous and inhumane than any other militant orthodoxy that has come and gone before. At least with the Nazis you knew if you were Jewish you were screwed and you had the choice to flee any country they took over, and if you had an approved pedigree at least you could feel safe, but todays militant tolerance fascists don't give you even that much courtesy. What is tolerable for you to be intolerant of today is never guaranteed to remain safe as a tolerated intolerance into the unknown future.
I think I would rather live under the harshest communist dictatorship in forced labor in a fucking salt mine, than to continue to live under the reign of the current PC tolerance fascism. At least you could be free to despise anything you wanted to in a salt mine and not get punished for it.
Last edited:
