Recently I was added and subsequently expelled from a politically themed Facebook group. While it presented itself as an uncensored forum for all to debate and discuss, it was a far cry from the tolerant image it made itself out to be. Today, as I read the day’s headlines, I’m bombarded with the intolerance of those desiring to stay willfully ignorant.
In the past few weeks, we’ve seen those with opinions contrary to the “gay agenda” become silenced, unemployed, and cast as pariahs in the media. Just this weekend, the Clippers owner Donald Sterling was caught making disparaging remarks against black people and the furor began anew. Al Sharpton and the rest of the “tolerant” world has called for the ostracism of this man for his personal feelings, feelings that didn’t stop him from donating to black groups who in turn have defended his racist diatribes in the past. Similarly, Harry Reid and cohorts laud the evils of the Koch brothers wealth while accepting campaign donations and sending thank you letters for their contributions.
In this age of hypocrisy, the recurring theme is, “do as I say, not as I do.” I’ll take your money (aid) for my benefit, but then punish you for believing differently than differently than I do. No more was this attitude more apparent than in my aforementioned Facebook group. I like to challenge group think while at same time shocking the world into reality and my posts reflected that.
One day it’s an example of black intolerance, another it’s the horrors committed by abortionists, tomorrow may contain historic examples of the left’s tolerance (or lack thereof) and sometimes violence. A funny thing happened as I deliberately stirred the pot. Those on the left who support the party ideas wholeheartedly began to chime in with “who the fuck cares about dead babies?” or “that was in the past how do you explain… (citing a landmark with an offensive name).”
These are the tactics of the intolerant, plug your ears and deflect to put you on the defensive. My retort is always logically answer whatever red herring they muster while remaining on topic as much as possible. Eventually, if the individual isn’t well versed in defending the topic, frustration sets in and the proverbial ad homenim is thrown into the ring (that’s called taking it to the man). A perfect example is, What do you know about human biology if you’re not a doctor? You’ve deflated the individual’s credibility by asserting that only doctors have knowledge of human biology. Sneaky right? The best part happens when they’re cornered, that’s when the schoolyard behaviour appears. Name calling is not beneath the intolerant because that’s how the behaviour works, and we see it everywhere.
Just this morning I woke up to a news story about a Republican Gay candidate in San Diego who was deliberately sabotaged by groups that are supposed champions of the LGBT community . When they were approached about their actions they simply replied “It’s complicated.” All that comes to my mind is, “those who cry for tolerance are usually the least tolerant of differing opinions and will do anything to silence you”. Uncensored has its limits, but to willingly silence opposition instead of challenging it is disgusting. That IS the tactic of the dictator and the oppressor, long live the overlords… For now.
For the record, Sterling only donated to those orgs. to clean up his tainted image. Whether or not they should have accepted the money is debatable (why make the needy suffer?). I personally think a Lifetime Achievement Award should be given for doing more than just writing a check and should only be given once (hence the term “lifetime”). As to your views regarding the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant, you are probably correct. I blame it on Libs no longer wanting to be seen as wussies. I would also argue that Teapubs are equally as nasty. Feigned outrage is the real problem and has become an epidemic.