Skip to content

Using the False Flag of Tolerance to Promote Intolerance

January 19, 2010

Using the False Flag of Tolerance to Promote Intolerance


Tolerance is too tolerant for its own good:

There are several definitions of tolerance for various good reasons. In engineering tolerance can be applied in a scientific manner where accuracy can be seen in terms of approximation (Plus or Minus) to an absolute. If something is measured at 3mm the engineer knows that there is a degree of inaccuracy and regardless of how minute it is (perhaps a few microns) the inaccuracy does exist in all measurement. Yet it is with social measurements that the true inability to make exact measurements start to develop. How does one measure the validity of a set of values without first having a set of values to compare them with? The engineer has a yardstick based upon a predetermined length of a what defines a single unit of measurement (Z x wavelengths = 1 meter) but the social engineer has no such universal yardstick. When speaking in terms of tolerance whether it is engineering or social engineering we need to know what the yardstick we are going to be using before we use any terms like tolerance.


Prizes in Nonsense:

If begging the question was to be awarded prizes then by far the winner would be ‘Politically Correctness’. It is a term that screams out the question begging to be answered: ‘Correct for whom?’ Just like the once in vogue term used by socialists ‘Ideologically Correct’ the answer is based upon the vested interest of who makes the assertion that something is ‘Politically Correct’. The PC movement is hardly a movement at all but a flag of convenience for a numerous agendas and social policies. People have heard the term ‘Politically Correctness gone Mad,’ and rightly it has been refuted as nothing more than semantics. Yet to blindly accept that there is such a thing as being ‘Politically Correct’ is to enforce one politically ideology as being correct only because it is yours. Without a clearly stated set of values and reasoning the term is meaningless.


I will say what tolerance means and no one else:

The word Tolerance also begs the question in much the same way. Tolerant of what? Being tolerant of something does not automatically mean that you are without prejudice. Prejudice certainly does stifle tolerance of other viewpoints but the equation does not always work both directions. This because prejudice can be defined as prejudging but tolerance is a vague word with its own baggage such as begging the question, emotional bias and weasel wording. Prejudice can be demonstrated and refuted easily but tolerance requires some degree of emphasis on what the parameters of tolerance and intolerance in fact are. Breaking the law in Victoria by Speeding has a measurable tolerance of 3kmph but the line between satire and vilification is a constant blur. This vagueness gives ample opportunity for vested interests to exploit the word and raise it as a flag for their cause alone. Tolerance for some vested interests is a buzz word that means that they are correct because they say so.


Raising the Flag:

Most people may see themselves as being tolerant regardless of what ideology that they subscribe to. I am yet to meet a person that professes they that are unreasonable and intolerant. People who hold opinions often claim that they have carefully considered all sides of the argument and came to sound conclusion. So far so good. However there comes a point where one opinion is incompatible with another. This is the point of distinction or point of difference between argument, where there can be no yielding without complete capitulation. Hence for an atheist if they decide that God does exist they cease to be an atheist. The fundamental principles of any ideology (whether we like it or not) defines what they are and the moment that we abandon them we cease to subscribe to the ideology. You can claim to be a pure Luddite but if you start collecting and using high technology then you cease to qualify as one. Just like a person claiming to be medical Doctor without a license is a false claim. This is because the fundamentals of any principles are what defines them. Tolerance in these cases only creates a fraudulent lie where those who wish to claim to be one thing are in fact something else because they have failed to qualify. A mathematician is a mathematician and to create a liberal mathematician is complete nonsense.


Hiding in the Nonsense to sell an Agenda:

If you want to cheapen any argument just fling false accusations at an opponent. If the accusation is false it can be made seem real by wrapping it up in vague buzz words like ‘Tolerance.’ Instead of the person asking to see the validity of the argument they must accept that any opposing argument is inherently wrong because it fails their definition of Tolerance. This happens all the time in public debates where unpalatable and unpopular propositions are being sold. The flag of ‘Politically Correct’ is countered with the statement of ‘Political Correctness Gone Mad’, but the false flagging of the word ‘Tolerance’ has not yet been countered to such a degree.


Tolerance of people’s beliefs, race, creed and colour etc are commonly seen as positives that counter bigotry and racism. Yet not all beliefs have equal reason to be respected. Beliefs that incite violence, in my view, should not be encouraged or promoted. Others may have a different viewpoint and that is their prerogative. Some use the Law as the finality of what is correct; other use Popularity; others use predefined ideologies; others cling onto prejudices and others hate. To tolerate all views is to accommodate Moral anarchism or Moral nihilism. Take your pick.


The Pitfalls of the False Flag of Tolerance:

Without tolerance we are regimented to a mythical monoculture dictatorship. Yet it is possible to use the flag of tolerance to sell intolerance. For example: what happens in a society that tolerates cannibalism as nothing more than a social difference? Enforcement of so called tolerant rules can sometimes be the epitome of intolerance. Should schools allow students to wear gang colours on the property to tolerate their free expression? Should doctors be forced by the law to perform operations that they find morally personally reprehensible? Should chemists be forced to carry drugs specifically designed for euthanasia and supply them to patients against their better judgement? Yet this is what is sometimes offered in the name of tolerance. In such cases it is a false flag that has little to with understanding of conscientious objections and is little more than enforcement of someone else’s ideology upon the unwilling.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: