When the left says the right is intolerant, what they mean is that the right has denied approval to one or more behaviors that the left wishes we would be permissive about.
When the right says the left is intolerant, what we mean is that the left wants to deny us a way of life.
The left is counting on a sleight-of-hand which requires us to not notice that permissiveness is in itself a denial of the ability to have standards.
Using an extreme example, Joe Mottle wants to shoot heroin.
Under a liberal system, he should be able to. We should tolerate his behavior and despite the fact that no one shares values, we should share the value of having a patchwork quilt of weird that forms our Babylonian society.
In this mindset, our rights begin and end at our own bodies or possibly, our own homes.
However, under a right-wing system, we consider consequences. No act occurs in a vacuum. Joe shooting heroin legitimizes heroin use and encourages others to do it; there will also be socialized costs of having Joe zonked out all the time, including to any wife and children he may accumulate. Further, there is a loss of a public right to a pleasant afternoon when, in an idyllic balmy moment, a heroin zombie suddenly appears staggering across the vista.
To a left-winger, that kind of “differentness” is welcome and possibly desirable. Everyone gets to be their own freaky self, and we all tolerate them, and congratulate ourselves on how moral and mature we are.
Witness columnist Dear Abby‘s response to a diner complaining about a cross-dressing waiter:
In California, people have the legal right to dress in a style not typical of their gender without fear of discrimination or retaliation. That right is protected by state law. If customers find it offensive, they can either request a different server or take their business elsewhere. Presumably, the customer would pay for food that had already been prepared.
Because children today grow up quickly and are less sheltered than in past decades, I recommend you explain to your 11-year-old that not all people are alike, and the importance of treating others with respect. It’s called reality – “Abby: Waiter’s use of makeup shocks diner,” Dear Abby, The Houston Chronicle
The diner wants to raise children in a biologically normal environment. By normal, they mean that most people act in roughly a certain way because they share similar goals, and that those who are doing something else do it away from the others. This is an eternal rule of civilization that permits real tolerance, not state-enforced tolerance which amounts to resentment and covert retaliation.
Notice the snootiness of it. High horse? Pretense? Moral superiority pose? Where in the past concerned citizens were the ones admonishing us toward Biblical behavior or conservative lifestyles, the nagging nannies today are preaching the dogma of the 1960s hybridized with the one thing we all must agree on, which is economics: if it feels good, do it — just keep showing up to work and buying our stuff.
The left pretends that it is intolerant of nothing and this is the biggest myth of our time.
The left is intolerant of any way of life that is not “anything goes.” The left wants to smash those ways of life worldwide and replace them with the leftist ideal, which is a patchwork quilt that just so happens to be very friendly to business.
People like Dear Abby parrot this stuff because it makes them feel good to have moral superiority over others. You never have power until you’re exercising it, and they feel power in knowing that all the other nagging nannies will join together into a righteous indignation-gasm and retaliate against anyone who wants a way of life other than the permissive, pluralistic, disordered and dysfunctional life of the neurotic leftist.
If the right is to revitalize itself, it starts by insisting that we have a right to a way of life, even if it takes a village or small city to create it, and that the left is intolerant of this way of life.
Even if they claim we are intolerant for opposing destruction of our way of life, such as opposing heroin use, this is a “begging the question” fallacy in disguise. They assume the ideal setup for society is pluralism; then, because we defend what society once was, they claim we are intolerant for not going along with the decay.
Opposing this downward slide gives the right the teeth and moral justification it needs to begin reversal of the wholesale destruction of our culture, people and values that leftism has wrought over the past century.
45 queries. 1.506 seconds
“No act occurs in a vacuum. ”
This is what the post-modernist establishment, brought about by the infamous sixties, is indoctrinating especially the young generation to think. It sees individuals as isolated atoms with their own realities, totally separate from the world and other people.
They also bring absurd arguments such as “my body is my own property”, despite the fact that they have little control over it and that it was not of their own choosing to have this “property”.
Now if this all occurred in vacuum, even though mistaken, this opinion would have no consequences outside the individual.
But, as long as everything in this world is interconnected and there IS an objective reality, that transcends one’s own subjectivity, trash must be considered for what it is and thrown out, regardless of “feelings” and “sensitivities”.
Leftist: “You are intolerant!”.
Human: “Do you mean you are intolerant of what you claim is my intolerance?”
Leftist: “I mean you are intolerant!”
Human: “You are being judgmental, as well as intolerant.”
Leftist: “You are an intolerant bigot!”
Human: “By calling me these things, you demonstrate your own intolerant, judgmental, bigotry, by taking issue with what you see as my intolerant, judgmental, bigotry.”
Leftist: “You are being inappropriate and offensive!”
Human: “And you are not?”
Leftist: “I am confronting your hatefulness!”
Human: “And I have better things to do than try to converse with toxic little brain-dead screw-ups like you.”
Etc…
(racist, bigot, intolerant, nazi, fascist, elitist, homophobe, sexist, misogynist, classist, pig) = (anyone winning an argument with a liberal)
The major stumbling block in defending a healthy norm is that
the norm in the US , as perceived by most people, is an obese , essentially illiterate mega churcher, probably divorced, saddling up to a trough at TGI Fridays, farting in their SUVs on the way back to a tract home.
As a young man, I did believe that I had to choose between this and a sole alternative ; A faux radical-left posture . Disorder is simply much more interesting to those who’re insulated enough to experience the fallout from it. It was the only social space, as it were, where art/music could be made, books written etc.
Those still there will stay until they experience the fallout , but they’ll never really leave until a new space for a new/old norm is opened up.
Thank you for this post. You hit many thing spot on, at least in regards to my thinking about my own past (and the the “zeitgeist” that was throughout the various phases of things.)
It was as if you had just those two choices: the “obese , essentially illiterate mega churcher, probably divorced, saddling up to a trough at TGI Fridays, farting in their SUVs on the way back to a tract home”. Or you could choose that which was opposite of that, as sold on MTV and the like, if you will.
I have found both to be a lie in so many ways. For myself, I am still trying to sort it all out. For sure, there are many things about my own life I have needed to change. And need to continue to do so. We do need healthier alternatives to the extremes as presented above. We need to allow honest conversation as a society, at least that is what I think. Right now it is a lot of dogma as far as I see it.
There are some authorized alternatives which boil down to pop culture reinactments. Some of the Boomer generation will adorn a body tattoo consumer product along with a motorcycle and accessories.
On occasional weekends off work they will star with conforming friends in their own virtual Easy Rider flick as publicly visible rebels who otherwise enable the society they detest for a living. Perhaps it is the case during the course of dialectic that system and myriad forms of expected rebellion have formed a flimsy, mutually inoffensive synthesis.
Rebellion affirms the system. Like a mullet, business on the front, party in the back, but it all comes back to business.
The problem here is that ordinary life sucks and should be destroyed. The McJobs, tract homes and all that hell.
As you show us however the ‘solution’ from the left is not a solution, but a path to more of the same. Give everyone freedom, make everyone equal, now they’re all in tract homes and McJobs.
We know what we hate when we’re kids, becuase we see that our parents suffer through it and hate themselves for doing it, but it takes another 20 years to know what we like.