Skip to main content

Intolerance in the name of tolerance




The tyranny of correctness.  Currently, we see a reversal within the party of inclusion to a party of intolerance in the name of tolerance.  If you do not agree with me, so they say, you must be racist, sexist, islamophobe, homophobe, or some other -ist or -phobic.  So fantastic are these to be unbelievable. 


Usually, you call others the names you would yourself abhor. So, name-calling has a limited reach.



They have forgotten what made them great.  They have embraced some easy targets while ignoring all but a couple of large groups, assuming their old-time supporters would continue to support.  They have made the fundamental mistake of assuming those in the tank should damn well stay there. Like Pandora’s box, once released, these forces roam independently. How can they put them back in their tank?  Maybe they will offer more promises, which of course translates into more spending. Maybe they will offer more detractors up to the pillory. 

Yet, this same party seems condemned by their own political truths.  They certify, ramify, and exemplify their commitment to their new core principles. Namely, “We are right because we are on the right side of history.”  Such sophomoric reasoning may cause future difficulties.  The self-confessed party of the intellectual, funded by the very wealthy, scripted by the academics, and supported by the poor has lost touch with who they were. 

Tangentially, I would like to comment on globalism, but it is difficult to understand.  It seems to indicate that all countries are equal and should be so treated regardless of other factors such as work, innovation, entrepreneurialism, and even political system.  It seems to be a belief that when all countries are kind of equal, all countries will behave as if in a wondrous global family.  Such ideas are utopian, and utopias do require complete concordance to function.  Concordance of the whole never works without overwhelming authority.  It is effectively a deconstructionism and disestablismentarianism of thought.

 This brings us back full circle to enforced and mandatory behaviorism by all citizens.  Thus so, we have correctness of thought.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view