The Insanity of Tolerance

Can I even talk about this without triggering a series of shallow debates? Whenever you talk about the extreme views of a religion posed on others it always turns into a religion-VS-religion debate. When you talk about insane political views forced onto the People it always turns into a Left-VS-Right debate. When you talk about racial views by politicians, policemen or business owners it always turns into a racial debate. So I am going to ignore ALL of these groups so that my point can be understood and taken for what it is.

We all know that things are getting quite insane in modern society (here in North America at least.) The laws, bylaws and regulations imposed on the People to deny their freedoms to express their thoughts, beliefs and traditions (whatever they may be) has gone to such an extreme level as only the most paranoid or cynical individuals could have foreseen such a time as this thirty years ago.

These days, riot police gear up and march down public streets, not to stand guard in case rioters start rioting, but to await their order to charge into and brutalize innocent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens for practicing their right for peaceful protest. This has of course happened before in our histories, but in my lifetime I have never seen this before. In my country (Canada) I have never heard the police publically admit to acting as provocateurs, mainstream media complain about national-level election fraud or the head of the secret service warn the public that their political leaders are falling under the persuasion of foreign governments. Things didn’t used to be this harsh, this extreme.

School boards and governments are bringing in regulations to restrict practices—and even themes and words—that are considered offensive to other people. If someone stands up with their friends and says they are offended by something, it seems that everyone must bend over backwards to accommodate them. To what end? Until we are all dressed in gray, our faces and hands covered? Until we all speak like robots, using only government-approved words?

I may be offended by a giant shrimp monument built at my favorite park because maybe I’m allergic to shrimp and they look ugly to me. So, I hate shrimp and am therefore offended by large fountain over my favorite pond being shaped like one. I cannot imagine storming off and barging into the mayor’s office, slamming down my fists on his table and demanding that the shrimp be removed from the park. I cannot imagine then storming out, forming a group of protestors and then marching down the streets—not to fight world hunger or something important to the world I live in—but to get the shrimp removed from the park.

I cannot imagine reporters coming to me and then for me to answer them: “I am outraged to see a shrimp in my park because I am offended by it being here! I do not care if other people like the shrimp, nor do I care that this is a Democracy and that everyone is entitled to their opinions, tastes and beliefs too! I do not like it and these people I rallied up agree with me, so just take down the blasted shrimp!”

How insane would I have to be? What kind of drug would I have to be on? What kind of hypnosis would I have to be under to actually think and act this way? It baffles the mind!

Now we hear about “tolerance”. Besides the fact that “tolerance” implies that compassion is not required, this socio-political term makes about as much sense as any other we hear from the “politically correct” movement. This movement is what strips away people’s freedom to think, feel and express anything which this crowd regards as “intolerant”. It’s like trying to force everyone into a box, in neat order and arms bound, so that no one can disagree.

From this movement we have another term: “agree to disagree”. When I first heard this term in high school I was baffled by its meaning. I thought: “I DO agree to disagree, isn’t that what an argument IS? We’ve agreed to disagree!” If you take the expression literally it actually means the exact opposite of what it actually means. The term is a deliberate deception. It makes sense at face value, therefore you cannot disagree with it, but it implies that “rising above” the argument is the civilized way of handling the situation—not just by not getting angry, but by actually stepping away from the debate all together. Somehow by not resolving anything we have cleared up the problem. The implication here is that the disagreeing IS the problem, not the issue itself.

OK, so what if the courts were to make child prostitution legal? It would be inappropriate to argue against it, because it’s just your silly opinion after all and the important thing is that we all get along. Can you see the obvious mind control mechanism in this form of thought?

Getting back to “tolerance”: if a division of people have a view that is offensive to you, you should keep your mouth shut. To do otherwise means that you are intolerant (discriminate against race, religion, etc.) A good citizen is a tolerant person who never expresses an intolerant thought. Maybe a group of Nazis are plotting to take over your country and they want to execute suspected criminals because they believe they have been appointed by God to do so. Be tolerant, now!

I am using extreme and obvious examples that we could all agree with in order to make my point. “Political correctness” is used to weaken the minds of individuals, to silence them either through creating social scorn or by convincing them that they are bad people to express thoughts which differ from the norm (the “norm” being a manufactured theory which people feel required to follow suit with but often will privately express disapproval of (we are not really androids but many will play the part.)

The term “tolerance” is just one example of how “political correctness” ignores compassion (something real and tangible) and replaces it with pure theory and speculation. Someone may be outraged by an atrocity and speak passionately against it—a real example of humanity at its raw, honest best. But if the words which come out are “intolerant” (whether by intention or bad word usage) the “politically correct” crowd moves in on them and starts the name calling: “racist”, “bigot”, “hater”, “moron,” etc., ignoring A. his intention, B. his honest emotional reaction and C. his right as a human being to express how he thinks and fees as one.

I am by no means intending to promote discrimination here. I am as much angered by racism, sexism and gay-bashing as anyone else. I believe in humanity, and that is why I am saying this. Our very humanity is under attack by a system which forces us to work for IT, instead of vice-versa. The psychological effects of “political correctness” is not an awakened sense of compassion for other human beings but a fear to express what you really think, and how you feel like expressing it: a suppression of your individuality.

“Money talks” and it talks pretty loud in a Capitalist world when the people are afraid to even form opinions anymore. We are bombarded by marketed images of their idealized modern family—one which finds pleasure through purchasing new things and has no fear or concern of the collapsing economy, spiritual depravity or gross corruption around them. “Everything is OK, no reason to frown—go to the mall and spend! spend! spend! Don’t worry about your financial futures, you’ll all be looked after by Big Brother! We’re looking after your interests!”

School taught us how to process information and do what we’re told instead of thinking for ourselves. “Political correctness” is the proverbial nail-in-the-coffin for independent thought and common sense. Spirit, passion and freedom are being sacrificed for the ideals of a world much easier managed by the heartless, greedy corporate leaders: men who suck away the last of earth’s natural resources and oversee the destruction of our cultural traditions and independent attitudes which would only give us the spirit to defy their insanity.

So, if someone fighting to have your shrimp removed upsets you, tell him what you really think of him!

reply to post by LoneCloudHopper


Bravo! While I may disagree with some of the points you made, I certainly agree that our cultural/racial differences can and should be discussed in a civil manner...

Thanks for the bravery

ETA
All it takes is a little misinformation by TPTB about this race or that race for us all to start fighting, but what happened to the HUMAN RACE? Human History has been so screwed up that we'll never get to know one another unless we try and reach out to each other!

Like Rodney King said, "Can't We All Just Get Along" or like I think "Can't We All Make An Attempt To Get Along"

reply to post by LoneCloudHopper

The term “tolerance” is just one example of how “political correctness” ignores compassion (something real and tangible) and replaces it with pure theory and speculation. Someone may be outraged by an atrocity and speak passionately against it—a real example of humanity at its raw, honest best. But if the words which come out are “intolerant” (whether by intention or bad word usage) the “politically correct” crowd moves in on them and starts the name calling: “racist”, “bigot”, “hater”, “moron,” etc., ignoring A. his intention, B. his honest emotional reaction and C. his right as a human being to express how he thinks and fees as one.

I agree completely. The politically correct crowd has this perverted version of pseudotolerance, where anything that hurts someones feelings or is not politically correct is off limits and somehow an example of intolerance. In reality, THEY are often the intolerant ones, because real tolerance includes tolerating politically incorrect and hateful opinions.

But another thing to consider is that despite the efforts of the PC madness, this is really an age where hateful, racist, bigoted and other "pseudointolerant" or politically incorrect opinions are at the peak because of the internet. The internet makes PC censorship almost irrelevant in practice.

reply to post by LoneCloudHopper


YOU need to brush up on your history. Besides, you should research where the argument against tolerance comes from.

PS.

Tolerance has been around for thousands of years, if you just heard about it through the television or a politician, then that is your fault for not doing any proper reading beforehand, and just sucking up what the tv or politics has to say.

And if you do ever educate yourself by reading history, would you care to tell us when and where there wasn't tolerance for others before? Also tell us what happened when there wasn't tolerance. Then come back again and rant and rave about shrimp statues while it has no bearing(ie a terrible analogy if ever) on real life. But then again, being sheltered only does so much for you...EY.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by LoneCloudHopper

 

Bold text added by myself.

YOU need to brush up on your history. Besides, you should research where the argument against tolerance comes from.

PS.

Tolerance has been around for thousands of years, if you just heard about it through the television or a politician, then that is your fault for not doing any proper reading beforehand, and just sucking up what the tv or politics has to say. Intolerance has also been around for many years

And if you do ever educate yourself by reading history, would you care to tell us when and where there wasn't tolerance for others before? Erm, Roman invasion, Hitler towards Jews, African warfare amongst themselves and many more]Also tell us what happened when there wasn't tolerance. Then come back again and rant and rave about shrimp statues while it has no bearing(ie a terrible analogy if ever) on real life. But then again, being sheltered only does so much for you...EY.

Understanding...fail


I wonder if you have actually read the OP's post. I'm not doing your work and explain why he mentioned extreme examples, just read it properly.
What I am almost shocked about is that after explaining his/her opinion very well, there are always those that just skim through and shout RACIST [you can shout racist even if you don't use the word. In the same way that you can be racist without calling names].
However the OP is right and spot on with their view as you have proven beautifully with your reply. It should be used as an example of ignorance to what the OP is trying to say.

You don't have to hate anything or anyone when you have an opinion. Parents don't hate their kids if they criticise them, teachers don't hate pupils when they correct them. Just because we have an opinion doesn't mean we have evil thoughts. However it is this misunderstanding that causes all the laws and such. You can't have everyone love everyone else or everything that is printed or broadcast or photographed or painted or drawn. Everything will offend someone and sometimes it is supposed to offend.
Offence is a valid strategy in highlighting what we don't like. Offense causes discussions and...solutions.

What the OP was going on about is that we are not even allowed to discuss anything and that the law at the moment is getting skewed by trying to make everyone not to offend any other person.
And if they do they are not just 'tasteless' or 'mean' but they become something they often are not, such as 'racists' or 'bigots'.

However that is not the way forward, we are humans, not machines, each one of us has a differing opinion and considering the human mindset, we are actually quite polite, tolerant and accepting [compared to history].
You can't force anyone to believe what you deem to be best [not only because your believe may actually be wrong] but if you force people to be quiet about their true feelings by threatening jail or calling them derogative names [i.e racist] all you do is suppress their true feelings and pretend. This can lead to escalate such feelings if they can't ever be discussed.
What the OP wants is the right to an opinion without threat from governments. Is that really so hard to understand?

I quote again this, which relates to racism but can also be used for any other government folly [please really read it and understand]:

This power, to both make the accusation and demolish the framework by which the accused can conduct a defense, is a power that blacks arguably have over whites in the context of academic discourse.

n

reply to post by Maslo


For online activity, yeah I have to agree. I've been shocked by how many people carry hateful, ignorant attitudes. I guess in person they'd keep their mouths shut and online they're anonymous so they feel brave.

reply to post by Hecate666


Thank you, and well said!

reply to post by Hecate666

Understanding...fail

On your behalf, yes.

What I am almost shocked about is that after explaining his/her opinion very well, there are always those that just skim through and shout RACIST [you can shout racist even if you don't use the word. In the same way that you can be racist without calling names].

I see you understand halfway where the argument against tolerance stems from, but I don't know if you know where tolerance stems from.

However the OP is right and spot on with their view as you have proven beautifully with your reply. It should be used as an example of ignorance to what the OP is trying to say.

Don't make me laugh. The OP is a pitiful excuse for a free mind. It's an egoistic, self-defeatist mindset that works its way into the victim position without ever having looked beyond borders! Or others! The incapability to understand that things are as they are and you have to make the best of it whichever way you can is apparently a lesson lost on you guys. Yet the insistence to keep whining and crying about culture when I bet not ONE of you can give a proper example of what culture really is. And I double-bet that not one of you can put matters into historical context, hence the incessant crying about the shrimp statue.

What the OP was going on about is that we are not even allowed to discuss anything and that the law at the moment is getting skewed by trying to make everyone not to offend any other person.

You are not allowed to discuss anything? Well that's pathetic and ignorant. If you live in North Korea, then maybe you have a point. But I bet you don't. "The law at the moment" is another piece of nonsense because it's been this way for quite some years now...and before that, institutionalized racism was the order of the day. Do you want to return to that?

And if they do they are not just 'tasteless' or 'mean' but they become something they often are not, such as 'racists' or 'bigots'.

As our knowledge grows so does our awareness of where arguments come from. The source, so to speak.

However that is not the way forward, we are humans, not machines, each one of us has a differing opinion and considering the human mindset, we are actually quite polite, tolerant and accepting

Please, the masses need laws to be kept in check. And since money is god in 99% of today's world, you can bet your behind that nobody is polite, tolerant or accepting if there is no $$$ involved.

You can't force anyone to believe what you deem to be best [not only because your believe may actually be wrong] but if you force people to be quiet about their true feelings by threatening jail or calling them derogative names [i.e racist] all you do is suppress their true feelings and pretend.

Well if they are racists then they need to shut their mouth, not pass their ignorant ways onto their children and die. Correct? I mean, if your true feelings are racist then I'm sorry, there is no place for you in tomorrows world, PERIOD.

What the OP wants is the right to an opinion without threat from governments. Is that really so hard to understand?

I can have my own opinion and not be threatened by the government...even in public. Why? Because my opinions are not hate fueled nor do my opinions or arguments stem from hate or dictators that killed millions. See? Simple isn't it? I bet you have those "forbidden" opinions with your friends.

I quote again this, which relates to racism but can also be used for any other government folly

Are you serious? Man you guys are lost. Get rid of the racist thoughts in your skulls because they are a disease. And then...you can talk without being fearful...such pansies, people elsewhere are getting killed to speak their minds, but they do so anyways because they know they are right. You however, know you are wrong, that's why you only try so hard, and not harder. So yeah, it's a non-issue, it's not like the government is wiretapping you everywhere.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Don't make me laugh. The OP is a pitiful excuse for a free mind. It's an egoistic, self-defeatist mindset that works its way into the victim position without ever having looked beyond borders! Or others! The incapability to understand that things are as they are and you have to make the best of it whichever way you can is apparently a lesson lost on you guys. Yet the insistence to keep whining and crying about culture when I bet not ONE of you can give a proper example of what culture really is. And I double-bet that not one of you can put matters into historical context, hence the incessant crying about the shrimp statue.

You're just making a fool of yourself. The shrimp statue was an obviously made-up, intentionally silly example.

And your gross assumptions about me couldn't be more wrong. You don't know me at all, nor do you seem to have made any attempt to understand why I would make that post. I care about the world around me (which obviously confuses you, but it comes with being human/sane) and I am trying to make a difference. You should research subjects like "evolution" and "personal development" to understand the meaning/value in promoting growth of thought/awareness.

At the very least I'm giving people food for thought and there is nothing wrong with that. I welcome debate, but your replies are made with such poor understanding of what I said and where I'm coming from. If you actually read the post it might have helped some.