The Virtue of Intolerance

I’m an intolerant person.  I do not like tolerant ideologies, values or people who push tolerance as a virtue.  I am not ashamed for being this way.  I will not apologise for this.  I believe if people were more intolerant, the world would be a better place for everyone.  I believe tolerance is the root of all of the world’s most pressing problems right now.  I’m explaining my position on this because Australians, and most people on this planet, are too tolerant.  We’re too tolerant of having sacred traditions, such as ANZAC day today being tarnished with advertisements, political commentary about Afghanistan from generals and politicians talking about how it didn’t matter that we lost the battle of Gallipoli (missing the point that this is remembrance of the fallen, not celebrate victory day).  When we tolerate violations to the sanctity of our nation, our families and of our selves, we invite corruption and degeneration.  Also the ideas expressed in this piece relate a lot to the pieces on cultural marxism I’ll be putting up.

Intolerance versus Endurance

The first mistake people who believe tolerance is a virtue usually make is to the confuse the vice of tolerance with the virtue of endurance, also known as fortitude.  These concepts are easily confused in conversation, but they are distinctly different in application.  To illustrate this point I’m going to use an example of an unemployed man looking for a job.

At the moment this man is living on the dole and feels miserable because he sees himself as a drain on society because he isn’t doing anything productive and he would really like to have some money and dignity which a job can provide him with.  So he looks and he finds an opening at a sawmill.  When he arrives for his first day he notices several hazards: exposed blades, extremely loud noise and dangerous levels of fine dust.  He also notices that the job has some annoying aspects: it is boring, with long hours and requires hard exertion.

First let us look at the hazards.  The man talks to his boss about them and asks for guards to be placed on the blades, hearing protection and a dust mask.  The boss replies, “stop being intolerant of the working conditions, and get back to work.”  The man is now confronted with a choice: does he allow his life, safety and well-being to be endangered by taking this job or does he tolerate the risk of losing limbs, his hearing and dying of emphysema at age 40?  Or is he intolerant of this situation and returns to the dole?

If he chooses to stay, I think it’s safe to call him a pathetic fool with no self-respect.

If he chooses to leave, I think it’s safe to call him a courageously dignified individual.

Next we have the annoying aspects of the job.   In this scenario, the boss replied by handing the man a key to the safety equipment locker and ran through the safety procedures with him thoroughly.  Now the man is confronted with the fact that his job is boring, with long hours and requires hard exertion.  Here the man has another choice: does he walk away from his job knowing he’ll be a drain on society if he does?  Or does he choose to endure these annoyances?

If he chooses to leave, I think it’s safe to call him a pathetic lazy whinger.

If he chooses to stay, I think it’s safe to call him a courageously strong individual.

The moral of this story: if you wilfully put yourself in danger and exploitation, you’re being too tolerant.  If you can accept that life isn’t all puppies, rainbows and dancing then you’ve got the virtues of endurance and fortitude and I wish you the best of fortune for your efforts.

Both women and men struggle with these concepts.  I have seen plenty of examples of men putting their lives in danger thinking they’re displaying fortitude, when they’re displaying a toxic level of tolerance.  I have also seen plenty of women refuse to do work because it is boring, thus expressing the belief that boring work is for lesser people  than themselves because their life is meant to be a fairy tale.  Not all men and women are like the examples I gave, but clearly there is widespread confusion with the disctintion between tolerance and fortitude.  One is to be mocked, the other admired.

Tolerance is a Virtue, If You’re a Slave

Slave owners from ancient Rome and medieval lords to plantation owners and religious leaders all understand the value in having tolerant slaves.  A tolerant slave can be exploited, whipped, humiliated and sacrificed all without complaint because the tolerant slave will blame themselves for their inability to tolerate being abused.  It is no surprise that enormous efforts have been undertaken by ruling elites to remind their slaves that tolerance is a virtue.  Through public hangings, stocks, gibbets, chain gangs, public schooling, advertisements and multicultural diversity programs we’re all taught that if you’re complaining, you’re obviously not tolerant enough and that’s the only real problem here.

If you’re tolerating people treating you as less than an equal, the odds are, you’re a slave.  Now, in a business there is a hierarchy, and you’re expected to obey your superiors, that’s because you traded some of your autonomy in exchange for money during set hours.  However, you did not agree to be treated like rubbish in this exchange.  Being tolerant of people who blur these lines is a sure sign that you’re a whimp, a loser and/or a slave.  Being intolerant of being treated like this speaks of character, dignity and self-respect.

Tolerance is a virtue for a slave, because the intolerant slave got hung in the gallows for all the other slaves to see.  Personally, I think those slaves who rebelled and got hung were heroic martyrs to the cause of freedom.  But to the other slaves, these people were idiots who didn’t realise it was they who had the problem if they could not stomach licking other people’s boots clean for nothing.

Interestingly, this practice of killing intolerant slaves must have led to an unofficial selective breeding campaign where they selected for the most docile, obedient and pathetic slaves.   If it didn’t mess them up genetically, it certainly would have culturally because only the slaves who embraced the culture of tolerance would have survived to pass on this culture.  Just think of wild bison and compare them to the pathetic animals we slaughter for food these days.  That’s what selective breeding of tolerant animals for domestication does.  That’s why women don’t like nice guys, they’re at the bottom of the food chain and deep down in their genes women know this.

Logic Can Not Disprove Logic

The best thing about being intolerant for me is the ease with which it is to prove that I’m right.  It is a similar situation as that when trying to disprove logic by using logic.  If you develop a logical argument for why logic is invalid, then the explanation for why logic is invalid is automatically invalidated.  Which means, you can’t beat logic using logic.  Tolerant people can never beat intolerant people without being intolerant themselves.  You can’t beat intolerance with intolerance, you only prove its validity.

When I mock, tease or laugh at tolerant people they are faced with a choice: they can tolerate me doing this, which proves me right because I’m now walking all over them, thus dominating them and hence showing that my position is the better stronger position to be in.  Otherwise, they can be intolerant of me doing this which makes them a hypocrite and proves me right also because their actions agree with my philosophy even if their words don’t and remember: don’t listen to what people say, just watch what they do.

How Tolerance Is Destructive

By now I would hope you’re starting to get the picture.  If you tolerate people walking over your boundaries, walking off with your money and your property, then you really don’t deserve to have your money and your property.  Call it the rule of the jungle, I call it common sense.  Dignity and self-respect is about avoiding turning into a domesticated animal for somebody else’s leisure and asserting your personal interests for your survival.

When you tolerate bullies, you’re encouraging them to keep bullying you.  When you tolerate politicians taking billions of dollars of your money and giving it to the banks, you’re tolerating someone walking into your house and stealing half your things.  When you tolerate affirmative action problems you’re making life harder for yourself and your own children and family.  When you tolerate politicians sending your countrymen to fight endless pointless wars for corporate profiteering, you’re letting them rob you of your money, your dignity and even your life.  When you tolerate your spouse expecting new wedding rings every year or so, you’re denying yourself the freedom to live your own life and find your own happiness.  When you tolerate violent and abusive people, you’re letting criminals live the good life at your own expense.  When you tolerate people walking all over your culture, you’re endangering the survival of your identity as a person and a nation.  When you tolerate corporations buying your votes through bribes and political parties, you’re tolerating being reduced to a slave.

If you tolerate other people walking across your borders/fence and making a home in your country/house, then like a fool and his money, you are easily parted from your land, culture and dignity.  Frankly, you don’t deserve to keep your land, culture and dignity if you’re that tolerant.

In fact, I could go on for pages and pages listing all the things people tolerate and how harmful they are to their personal interests.  But I hope by now you’ve understood what I’m getting at.  You’re hopefully beginning to understand the virtue in getting up, going to your window and screaming, “I’m as mad as Hell, and I’m not going to tolerate this anymore!”

If you tolerate these things, then you’re just a pathetic slave who probably enjoys hurting yourself.

The Benefits of Being Intolerant

The intolerant person meanwhile has many advantages.  They don’t tolerate criminals, thieves, liars, gold-diggers, bullies, idiots and traitors.  They create a space around them free of these parasites where they feel comfortable and can truly relax enough to enjoy life.  They don’t tolerate being self-pitying, nor being a victim.  Intolerant people have clean houses, good diets, they don’t accept their excess fat, they work it off.  They don’t let their bosses push them around, they teach their children to be strong and self-reliant.  When challenged they have an air of dignity and only make sacrifices that benefit themselves, their families and their nations.  They don’t tolerate lying greedy weak-willed politicians but demand strong honourable self-respecting statesmen.  Another term to describe a person high in tolerance is a person with low standards.

To conclude, whenever you hear people preaching tolerance.  Mock them.  Eventually they’ll realise if they want to be taken seriously, they need to start taking themselves seriously.  Also, don’t waste your life bitching about things not being the way you wish they were, don’t tolerate that mediocrity from yourself and others.  Get off your arse and be an active participant in the world.  The solution to the world’s problems doesn’t come from giving governments more power, but allowing individuals to seize more power over their lives, and that includes you.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Beliefs, Morals, People

Author:Jason Sutherland

Resist the temptation to assume that you're always right or wrong. Never succumb to thinking you're so insignificant to trust your own thoughts and feelings. Always be responsible and listen carefully to others before passing judgement. Don't trust governments bearing stolen goods.

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

35 Comments on “The Virtue of Intolerance”

  1. Mr. Anonymous
    April 25, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    I get your point, however, you use a very narrow definition of tolerance which confuses ‘tolerance’ with ‘relativism’. Standing up to something is not being ‘intolerant’ (though your article defines it as such).

    “Tolerance accepts SOME inappropriate behaviour for the sake of the common good; relativism denies that good has any universal meaning and so accepts ALL behaviour.”

    At the end of the day, failing to make this distinction, forces you into a dichotomy, where the only way to make the world a ‘better’ place is by being completely intolerant, inflexible, and unforgiving. This kind of callous intolerance has many negative consequences that you neglected to mention.

    Once you dispense with this false dichotomy, we can acknowledge that SOME tolerance is beneficial and then ask the more basic question of HOW much tolerance is TOO MUCH? I think most would agree that tolerance for the sake of tolerance is useless.

    • April 25, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

      No!
      Of course tolerance for the sake of itself is useless! That goes without saying. BUT if ever you have to accept a burden for the common good to your own detriment you become a slave to your neighbour. You become an tool to be used to advance other people agendas’. It involves seeing your value as a function of how useful you are to others. It assumes that they have more right to your life than you do.
      Standing up to something is VERY much practicing intolerance otherwise you’d be tolerating it.

      • April 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

        This is very relevant when a nation goes to war. If the nation goes to war to protect itself against an aggressor then there’s a good case that fighting such a war is in ones best interests, especially if the aggressor wants to ethnicly cleanse your people from existence. However, I can’t think for the life of me why fighting in Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan in particular is so important to me, my family, my community or my nation.

    • April 25, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

      Yes, wasn’t sure how else to point out that fortitude was about accepting life isn’t perfect and sometimes we just have to suck it up. I mean, some things are very hazardous to your health and shouldn’t be tolerated, things that will degrade you if you tolerate them. While others, like hard work, exercise and a healthier diet will hurt, but they’ll make you stronger in the end so you need to endure them.

      I think the key is to be prepared to disregard how you feel about a situation like one of the following: this cake is delicious, this girl is hot, this exercise is exhausting, they’ll love me if I just do this for them, etc… By disregarding how one feels in the moment one can objectively evaluate how the short term benefits are insignificant to the long term consequences of going through with this behaviour. A society that acts from its gut, so to speak, doesn’t have the option of directed intelligent action. So the real challenge is to develop self-discipine to stop being dictated to by ones feelings. Hence self-respect leads to the development of self-discipline and self-control.

    • April 25, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

      Don’t go getting logical Mr. Anonymous 🙂

  2. April 25, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Nice article.
    It can be a slippery concept to define and you’ve put into words what for me was an amorphous idea. Being intolerant, while often difficult and involving throwing off the chains of a learned doctrine, is what makes a human being.

    • April 25, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

      Precisely, if you don’t have enforced personal boundaries, then your individuality dissolves into the collective. Oblivion.

  3. April 26, 2012 at 3:16 am #

    “Cultural Marxism”

    XD. I can’t believe you used that term seriously.

    I mean, the poetic theory of value, right? The workers control the music of production? Falling rate of paintings?

    • April 26, 2012 at 9:08 am #

      Culture is more than just paintings and music. Culture is all the behavioral programming of people provided to them from the society they grew up in.

      Culture is what food you eat, what clothes you wear, what side of the road you drive, who you vote for, what values you think are important, how you talk, if think your sister having sex with a foreigner dishonours your whole family and deserves death.

      Culture is not just art, that’s why we have separate words for ‘culture’ and ‘art’. It’s rather clever that isn’t it?

      Cultural Marxist is a frequently used term to describe people who have communist values yet aren’t completely communist or don’t realise they have them. Do you believe in an unlimited welfare state? Do you believe in a big government with the power to interfere with your personal and family life? Do you believe it’s our duty to invade other countries and ‘civilise’ them? Do you hate nationalism and put your country down all the time? Do you let others push you around and expect the state to help with any problem you have? Do you think that culture doesn’t really exist or matter and therefore mass immigration of people from different cultures isn’t a problem? Do you believe you can simply tolerate an arsehole out of existence? Do you believe that women are as a class all victims of an invisible patriarchy? Did you dismiss these questions as fascist propaganda because all your life people have been telling you different but if you’re honest you’ve never really thought about it you’ve just gone with the crowd and conformed?

      If you answered ‘yes’ to one or more of these questions then you might be a cultural Marxist. To learn more check out my article on an ‘Introduction to Cultural Marxism.’

  4. April 26, 2012 at 4:46 am #

    Reblogged this on CoryC.ME and commented:
    Good article!!!!

  5. April 26, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    I applaud your courage in writing an article and placing what you think out there. The value of free speech is that it takes courage because those words can be used as a noose to hang you with logic. So I will give my best in addressing your points in this article.

    Dignity and self-respect is about avoiding turning into a domesticated animal for somebody else’s leisure and asserting your personal interests for your survival.

    I agree with this based on two important sayings.
    1) All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
    2) You only become a doormat if you lie down.

    if you wilfully put yourself in danger and exploitation, you’re being too tolerant.

    Your model is reliant on a person’s definition of tolerance. Does your model account for a disagreement in what a person should endure and tolerate? e.g.
    sometimes an issue that is of burning importance to one person may be vexatious or litigious to another person e.g. an employee is upset that the employer does not provide green pens to each employee. Some claims of intolerance are vexatious and trivial, and no right “not to be offended” should exist (even though offending someone generally is a bad move)

    There are certain times when tolerance can be exchanged e.g. to have an understanding. Working long unpaid hours for a manager, for example, in the understanding that the manager will protect you / look after you at a time beyond his own call of duty. Mutual understandings on issues “we should not tolerate (by your definition)” for an equivalent exchange is conducive for co-operation.

    If you’re tolerating people treating you as less than an equal, the odds are, you’re a slave.

    Define Equal.

    There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

    I would say equal is this: you should be afforded the same opportunity based on your ability to fit a criteria that is only reliant on your capability, not on your gender, your race or religion.

    For example you must be tall enough to reach the storage bins on a flight if you would like to be an air stewardess. You must be able to life 50kg and carry it 100m if you want to be an SAS commando. There is discrimination, yes, but based on quantifiable capability and not on superficial stereotypes.

    they can tolerate me doing this, which proves me right because I’m now walking all over them, thus dominating them and hence showing that my position is the better stronger position to be in.

    The problem with this is that what you describe is the tactics of a bully. You “score points” but fail to convince the other person. It is a failure of persuasion, a failure of diplomacy. They raise their shields and your audience thinks you are a tool. You become a troll trying to bait a reaction out of your audience, rather than a scholar committed to higher learning.

    The reason is that people are more likely to listen to you if they like you. They will dislike you if you act like a tool. Hence they will not listen to you and, while you stoke your own ego, you are marginalising yourself and your cause. One then becomes a demagogue to an empty room.

    “Domination” is not the aim of the game here and actually makes it difficult to achieve objectives in many cases. Persuasion is the true aim. There are some times, however, where domination and even violence is necessary, for thieves and brigands that only understand violence. It is important, for this exception, to stand up to these people with a big stick.

    “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

    But bullying and violence are the domain of a man who has run out of ideas. There are many times, such as during the exchange of ideas in a forum of peers, when neither of the above are necessary.

    When you tolerate bullies, you’re encouraging them to keep bullying you.

    Lashing blindly, however, drags you down to the bully’s level and makes yourself no better… if everyone in the world lived by an eye-for-an-eye, the whole world would be blind. It is better to respond with maturity and civility because, in a forum of peers, it becomes immediately clear who the bully is. It is clear because bully must compensate for a lack of evidence and logic with bluster.

    They don’t tolerate criminals, thieves, liars, gold-diggers, bullies, idiots and traitors.

    Define a criminal. Define a traitor.

    Do you believe that the world should follow your definition of a criminal, or your definition of traitor?

    Another term to describe a person high in tolerance is a person with low standards.

    Conversely, words to describe someone too intolerant include: close minded, vexatious, unpleasant

    Such intolerant and close-minded people can be difficult and stressful to do business with, because they are too busy wallowing in and celebrating ignorance to consider other points of view or to consider that the truth may be different than how they see things.

    Mock them.

    My strategy is different. Ask the tolerant person a challenging question to test their beliefs. Cognative dissonance vs the ego will cause mental somersaults. They may also surprise you with a civil answer that challenges your own beliefs. And everyone benefits because learning is advanced.

    Because mocking causes people to raise their shields because they are offended, and for the mocker to break rapport. Nobody benefits, everybody loses… except the bully who gets a woodie from “scoring points.”

  6. April 26, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    Responding to each point by quote numerically:

    1. Cool

    2. I thought I went into a detail about this in the article in the Tolerance versus Endurance section. Generally individuals will have to reason through experience and logic, not through emotion and fweelings, to determine what harms them and what makes them stronger.

    3. By ‘equal’ in this context I’m referring to the “equality in dignity and rights.”

    4. I don’t care about abstract ideas about what people theorise what is good or not. I care about what happens in the real world. The people underneath a bully can complain all they like but the bullies in this world have the most kids, pay the least taxes and collect the most benefits from the rest of the population. Sure they’re despised and may also loathe themselves. But objectively they’re the winners who’ll past on their genetics to the next generation while all the nice people decide not to have kids for the sake of world overpopulation and pay lots of taxes in jobs looking after the bully’s kids for the social/abstract pay-off of appearing like a good person.

    That’s just self-hatred and while I believe people love to hurt themselves to show off how selfless they are, these people are the slaves of the ones they feel obligated to look after from the kindness of their heart. The self-sacrifice instinct in human beings is very strong, it will override our self-preservation instinct. To see this all you need to do is think outside your emotions.

    5. I’m not talking about lashing out blindly, but standing up for yourself. Punching a bully back is not turning into a bully. It’s also hardly degrading, it’s courageous and strong. However, turning into a bully yourself after you’ve asserted your boundaries by violating theirs is a problem. The solution is really quite simple: if everyone asserts themselves then everyone will learn to not bully but respect other people’s boundaries. It’s an organic model that is self-organising and observed in nature from the behaviour of wolves, to neurons in the your brain to even bacteria I’m told. Bacteria will bully each other and fight back to establish a co-operative equilibrium. Humans not doing this is actually damn peculiar and I suspect it is because too much abstract thinking makes us blind to reality. Less educated people seldom make this mistake. As hard as this might seem to comprehend, but too much abstract education can be a problem, it’s very important to also be practical to balance out the problems of over abstraction.

    6. Criminal: a person who deliberately inflicts harm on another person(s) solely their own personal gain.

    Traitor: a person who deliberately acts against the interests of their family, clan, community or nation for personal again at the expense of their family, clan, community or nation. So a person who sells national secrets to another nation is a traitor, a child who steals their parent’s money is a traitor, a politician who lies to their people to get re-elected is a traitor etc…

    My definitions are clear, unambiguous and simple.

    7. No. I think you’re confusing extreme intolerance with stupidity. An extremely intolerant person would be paranoid, restless and phobic. However, these are mental states that are self-limiting in the vast majority of people because they are too uncomfortable/exhausting to maintain. Sure, we’ll always have some extreme nutters but most people will just physiologically be unable to suspect this level of intolerance for very long with a mental breakdown.

    8. I say mock them because they’re being unreasonable. If they were amenable to reason you wouldn’t need to mock them. There are few approaches to getting other people to do what you want: trade with them, shame them, bribe them (still technically a form of trade), cheat them, manipulate them, threaten them, bludgeon them. Obviously the first one is the ideal in every situation, but if that doesn’t work shaming is the next best thing because the other options are all extremely harmful and unpredictable. Hence why I advocated slut shaming, if we don’t shame them we’re left with imprisonment and other forms of violence.

  7. April 26, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    Thank you kindly for your answers. I will answer in kind.

    I don’t care about abstract ideas about what people theorise what is good or not. I care about what happens in the real world.

    In the real world, the definition of what is good to one person and bad to another matters. Jason Sutherland’s definition of what is good and bad is not common to all. What we define as real becomes real in our own lives.

    Sure they’re despised and may also loathe themselves. But objectively they’re the winners who’ll past on their genetics to the next generation while all the nice people decide not to have kids for the sake of world overpopulation and pay lots of taxes in jobs looking after the bully’s kids for the social/abstract pay-off of appearing like a good person.

    No. Bullies are eventually ostracised because they make many enemies. They are poor at convincing others to co-operate. That is because of the idea of “buyers remorse”… bullies antagonise those that would buy their wares, hence they stand alone, and fall alone.

    There are times when using intimidation is smart for an environment, there are times the tool at hand is appropriate. But this is dependent on having pliable lessers, rather than a forum of peers.

    these people are the slaves of the ones they feel obligated to look after from the kindness of their heart.

    I am also for the law of the jungle. But kindness does have a place.. if one plays the “dove-hawk” game, then two doves working together makes more than a hawk stealing from a dove. As long as the hawk is managed and the proposed action is affordable, kindness is good policy. Managing the hawk is hard, I concede: the drive to human enteprise, ambition and greed is strong. But it is possible to align ambition so that great things can be built.

    a person who deliberately inflicts harm on another person(s) solely their own personal gain.

    If a law says that anyone who slanders the tyrant is a criminal, and you stand up to the tyrant as intolerant of her laws, you are a criminal and a traitor for your sedition. 51% of the country may agree that to stand against the tyrant is seditious behaviour and support punishment, saying that the subversion was to support corrupt and revolutionary activity.

    By your definition of criminal, does that mean that a person who breaks a criminal law of a nation that makes them a criminal, is a criminal? Or is it only that the people Jason Sutherland considers are criminals (i.e. they had to inflict harm for personal gain). For example, a woman who is raped in Pakistan may be subject to the Hudood ordinances, i.e. she has to prove she was raped or is considered to be adulterous and hence stoned to death. This woman is a criminal by this law, because she may simply be adulterous.

    a child who steals their parent’s money is a traitor

    Is a revolutionary who stands up intolerantly to subjugation a traitor?

    That would make the burmese monks slaughtered by their military as traitors. That would make Syrian protestors shelled by the army traitors.

    because they are too uncomfortable/exhausting to maintain.

    On the contrary, I would contend it is easy to maintain hatred if it becomes identity, reflexive or habit.

    I was once a friend of a man who was in the habit of keeping grudges. I am no longer friends with him because he has found a grudge for me, and it costs him nothing to maintain the grudge. So no, it is easy and not exhausting to maintain contempt for another person, especially if you percieve that person as your “enemy”.

    I say mock them because they’re being unreasonable. If they were amenable to reason you wouldn’t need to mock them.

    I would say it is possible to use subtlety to mock someone in such a way for them to accept this rebuke as wisdom. That is the essence of the socratic method; it allows the person being asked the question to change their minds within themselves.

    e.g. statement “all adulterors are bad because they are anathema to the family unit”

    “what about women that are raped? They have engaged in extramarital sex? Maybe they are claiming they were raped to get out of admitting adultery?”

    Hence why I advocated slut shaming, if we don’t shame them we’re left with imprisonment and other forms of violence.

    There are many things wrong with this statement, but as a courtesy I will not go into them as it would be off topic.

    What I have seen is this: have you seen the movie Easy A? That is a hilarious example of why slut shaming can backfire. Because slut shaming is just another form of gossip, hearsay and slander, and none of those are scientific means to administering justice.

    • April 26, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

      Ah-hem….

      “….What we define as real becomes real in our own lives.”

      While I agree to an extent that each person makes their own reality, that’s massively simplified. Reality will not bow to anyones’ IDEA of reality if it is contrary to what actually IS reality. If good and evil were that subjective then no one would ever have the right to judge anyone else. Yet we do, constantly. Surely, if your view of the world held then Hitler was not wrong, eating babies is perfectly acceptable, and torture no big deal. What all these thing have in common is the fact that people almost universally agree to believe them to be wrong. Hence, Intolerance is healthy and normal.

      “….bullies antagonise those that would buy their wares, hence they stand alone, and fall alone.”

      Someone who is intolerant is not necessarily a bully. That’s a big assumption. A bully isn’t someone who practices intolerance for a noble cause. A bully is someone that is needlessly cruel for no reason other than they want to be or it amuses them. They’re not standing up to something because to do otherwise would make them less than human. Bullies exist because people tolerate them and when you stop doing so…remove yourself from their presence.

      “….51% of the country may agree that to stand against the tyrant is seditious behaviour and support punishment….does that mean that a person who breaks a criminal law of a nation that makes them a criminal, is a criminal?….For example, a woman who is raped in Pakistan may be subject to the Hudood ordinances, i.e. she has to prove she was raped or is considered to be adulterous and hence stoned to death. This woman is a criminal by this law, because she may simply be adulterous….”

      Declaring someone to be a criminal solely on the word of the state is ludicrous. Just because someone breaks a law that’s written down somewhere doesn’t make them a criminal. Based on the law in question the state itself may be held criminal because to declare someone a criminal to afford yourself a personal gain IS criminal. As for that 51% majority? That’s still just tolerating the majorities right to your life.
      Now, considering the woman who was raped. If she’s lied about being raped, when she’s commited adultery, she’s accusing another of a crime they didn’t commit for her personal gain. So IF she’s lying then I would consider this woman to be a criminal.

      “Is a revolutionary who stands up intolerantly to subjugation a traitor?”

      Not if the cause is just. If a government seeks to not help the people it presides over then it’s not a good one. If the rulers seek their own personal gain above their responsibilities to the people they rule this makes them criminals in need of displacement.

      “….I would contend it is easy to maintain hatred if it becomes identity, reflexive or habit….it is easy and not exhausting to maintain contempt for another person, especially if you percieve that person as your “enemy”.”

      This would be the difference between being intolerant or a bully. A bully has every reason in their own mind to hate the person that will not bend to them. The intolerant person has simply refused to be a slave.

      • NM
        April 26, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

        @ Tamiko,

        “Reality will not bow to anyones’ IDEA of reality if it is contrary to what actually IS reality. If good and evil were that subjective then no one would ever have the right to judge anyone else. Yet we do, constantly. Surely, if your view of the world held then Hitler was not wrong, eating babies is perfectly acceptable, and torture no big deal. What all these thing have in common is the fact that people almost universally agree to believe them to be wrong.”

        Reality is in fact perception. Pure and simple. “Good” and “Evil” are highly subjective to the times and culture of the people who set the status quo. For instance, there are some people (a lot actually) to this day who believe in the Nazi cause, and in their “reality” Hitler was not wrong. The Spartans, while they did not eat babies, still found it perfectly acceptable to kill the “weaker” ones right after birth. And as for torture well that is still a very common and acceptable interrogation tactic. Just because it is not apart of your reality or you aren’t aware of such “realities” doesn’t mean that it is not someone elses or that it does not exist.

        “If good and evil were that subjective then no one would ever have the right to judge anyone else”
        Because realities/ good v evil are so subjective and immensely different between the cultures people inheretnly feel the need to judge and condemn other cultures that are unlike themselves. If they weren’t then we would have no need to make such judgements.

        “….What we define as real becomes real in our own lives.”

        Jason was absolutley correct with this statement.

        • April 27, 2012 at 8:10 am #

          “Reality is in fact perception.”

          So, if you turn on a light switch and nothing happens it isn’t because the light bulb has broken but a faulty perception on your part?

          This is actually a philosophical problem. Philosophically speaking their are 3 ways one can perceive the world:

          1. Reality exists and we can observe it objectively.
          2. Reality exists but we can only see it through the filters of our prejudices.
          3. Reality doesn’t exist and all we have is our filters of perjudices.

          Now, what tends to happen is that whatever group you fit into, I’m in group 2 for example, one tends to see the people in the other two groups as mad. Interestly these three groups are about equally represented in a typical university population, no idea how well they are distributed across the general population. So roughly everyone thinks two thirds of humanity is insane at any given point in time.

          However, I am going to argue, that thanks to impericism, we can now prove that options 1 and 3 are in fact invalid world views.

          1. Is invalid because we know the placebo effect exists in everyone to some extent, paranoids, psychotics and people from other cultures clearly don’t see the world they way we do.

          3. If reality didn’t exist then science wouldn’t be possible. Magic would be ‘real’ and used by everyone.

          So. Option 2 remains and it goes like this: reality exists, but we are only able to see our own individual narrow corner of it at any one point in our lives. We never directly touch it, or feel it… but if it wasn’t there you wouldn’t be able to read these words on your screen right now unless this was all a psychotic daydream you are having from option 3 and I’m a disembodied voice in your head.

          That said, there are arguments that these three different worldviews have different pros and cons for survival. Arts students are mostly from option 3 when asked, biologists and clinicians are mostly from option 2 and chemists and physicists from option 1. I fit my stereotype group. It is argued that artists need to be wrong about the world in order to be right about their art and that in the worlds of chemistry and physics it is possible to directly observe nature and therefore reality. While a clinician ignorant to the placebo effect can’t really do their job effectively at all.

          • April 27, 2012 at 10:14 am #

            Thanks for that Jason, I found that write up quite fascinating. I don’t agree with all of it, but like the logic so it adds to my world view and meditation on the subject.

            The issue with my statement is not so much the nature of reality, but the way we see reality within ourselves. Our conscious mind and unconscious mind are separate. The unconscious mind is an enormous, amoral, efficient machine that defines reality the way we want to see it by compressing and distorting the information gained by our senses. The conscious mind is a control room.

            So if you say, “I’m looking for red cars” you suddenly start noticing red cars.

            The nature of reality is also deeper that, your brain stores data holographically, and so does the universe. That’s why the “magic” of the Star Trek transporter is indeed possible. Schrödinger’s cat is another example.

            • April 27, 2012 at 10:33 am #

              “Our conscious mind and unconscious mind are separate. The unconscious mind is an enormous, amoral, efficient machine that defines reality the way we want to see it by compressing and distorting the information gained by our senses. The conscious mind is a control room.”

              Dude. As a philosophy major and a psychologist take it from me, you’ve got that all wrong.

              Firstly, when Freud introduced the concept of the unconscious he was referring to everything you know (your memories) but are not aware of in the moment. So the childhood memories at home for you were unconscious until I suggested them to you in this sentence and now they’re conscious. That’s all he meant.

              What you just described was some hippy new-age quackery that’ll get you laughed out of academia faster than you can whistle the death march.

              Secondly, if you go looking for some pseudo-scientific spiritual unconscious you’ll find it, and it looks like you have.

              The issue is that language is abstracting. It detaches people from reality. Reality isn’t abstract at all. It’s solid as a rock and it’s everywhere around you. The language that you’re so involved with is the only thing that makes Star Trek’s transporter seem real and the only thing that makes Shroedinger’s cat an interesting point for philosophical conversation.

              Don’t get me wrong, language is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But until you free your thinking of linguistic dependancy you will never find clarity or certainty.

      • April 27, 2012 at 10:08 am #

        Thank you for adding to the discussion , Tamiko.

        What all these thing have in common is the fact that people almost universally agree to believe them to be wrong.

        You have been immersed in a reality that says they are wrong, and mistake that reality by extrapolating it to everyone. Exceptions: Neo Nazis think Hitler was right. Missionaries on an island told of Jesus, and the natives applauded when Judas was described because he had “outsmarted” Jesus. The favourite pasttime of Ghenghis Khan and his Mongol hordes, when they ruled one of the largest empires in human history, was raping the women after a conquest. That’s why there are so many people in the world today who can trace their blood back to the Khan. At the time if you were a Mongol barbarian and you did not enjoy raping women, there was something “wrong” with you.

        In Masada, the jewish sect butchered each other to keep themselves from the Romans. The Romans, used to the spoils of war, slaves, hostages and triumph, were irked when they found the stench of death. The Romans thought the Jews were crazy, the Jews thought they were justified under God to deny Romans victory. Today, climate change deniers, according to some, should have their houses burned down or resettled on sinking islands. My point is “universally agree” does not exist on any point.

        Declaring someone to be a criminal solely on the word of the state is ludicrous.

        Declaring someone criminal because it contravenes the moral code of Tamiko Johnston is also ludicrous. What if you were a Mongol barbarian, so you would gnash that the world did not share your love of raping women and taking hostages? I believe in a strong sense of good and evil, but I recognise that it is my belief and that everyone in the world may not share my view. That is why one needs to carry a big stick from time to time.

        just tolerating the majorities right to your life.

        The majority determines what is law in a democracy. Pakistan, for all its failings, is still a democracy.

        IF she’s lying then I would consider this woman to be a criminal.

        If you are a juror with evidence before you, can you tell if she is guilty or not? Are you sure she is lying or not, or only 50% lying (e.g. she went on a date with a man illegally, and he ended up raping her)? Are you omniscent?

        Not if the cause is just.

        So only causes that are sanctioned by Tamiko Johnston are just? One would say that Gaddafi’s downfall was “just”, but what of the militia who still roam the country, what of the mutilation of his body? The downfall of Saddam Hussein, a vicious tyrant, is just, but what of an “illegal” invasion? No cause is just. Only some causes are expedient.

        “A bully has every reason in their own mind to hate the person that will not bend to them.”

        By extension, if a sociopath murders a woman’s son, and the woman hates the sociopath, the woman is a bully. Yes?

        • April 27, 2012 at 10:22 am #

          “My point is “universally agree” does not exist on any point.”

          So honesty, integrity, truth, justice, fairness, guile and courage are not universally admired in all cultures?

          I think you’re worrying too much about the details and missing the bigger picture. Everyone has morality, they just express it differently. The differences in expression matter a lot of course. That’s why I’m anti-multiculturalism, we can’t handle diversity in moral expression without disaster.

    • April 27, 2012 at 8:50 am #

      “I applaud your courage in writing an article and placing what you think out there.”
      “Thank you kindly for your answers. I will answer in kind.”

      You know, I don’t care for flattery one bit. I see flatterers as dishonourable manipulators.

      Also, kindly never use my real name in posts on the internet, there’s some Islamists in France out there who want to “save” me and I worry they mean it Theo van Gogh style or if they do not, that others will.

      “Jason Sutherland’s definition of what is good and bad is not common to all. What we define as real becomes real in our own lives.”

      Well, after everything you wrote up there you’ve exposed yourself as a moral relativist and a believer in the tyranny of the majority. Including some extremely liberal interpreations of what I wrote.

      I’ve been thinking over night how best to illustrate why moral relativism isn’t just paradoxical and fundamentally immoral. I recommend you read Sam Harris’ “The Moral Landscape” where he debunks moral relativism several times.

      Here’s how I personally debunk moral relativism. Sam Harris uses a different argument.

      There is one universal moral desire in all human beings: honesty.

      Not that anyone on this planet is honest, but every single person values it. Even con-artists, liars, psychotics and day-dreaming hippies value honesty. You might say that wishful dreamers who lose themselves in daydreams about the world don’t value honesty but the reality is they all concede that they want to know the food they eat isn’t poisonous, that the ground beneath them won’t swallow them up, that the people around them aren’t lying to keep them sedate. Mobsters, drug-dealers, con-artists, psychopaths and other criminals all want to be treated honesty even by the people they routinely lie to. See how offended you get if you lie to these people.

      Honesty is where the moral concept of ‘honour’ comes from. An honourable person is honest, intellectually and in deed. He admits defeat gracefully when defeated, he speaks straightforwardly and truthfully, he doesn’t speak in a striaghtforward and truthful way, because he is straightforward and truthful. Every society has a concept of honour in them. In the West cultural Marxists have spread this idea of moral relativism to undermine Western confidence in every facet of life. If everything is relative then who are we to criticise communists for murdering their own people in vast archipelagos of forced labour camps while selling the idea of their liberation from tyranny to them?

      It is entirely possible that the Soviet Union deliberately spread moral relavitism to the West during the Cold War because it is a nihilistic and depressing idea that would undermine a person’s confidence in everything. A psychological war; see the West spread destabilising propaganda to the East, do you think they never did the same to us? The West were a lot more honest about it, that is all. But now we’re all moral relativists in the West we don’t mind being secretive or having secretive governments. No, who are we to say what is right and wrong? <– see the loss in confidence? See the demoralisation in moral relativism.

      Moral relativism makes one pathetic and weak. Some rebels do have legitimate causes, authority is never right simply because it has the power to force me to obey it.

      In Islamic cultures they "honour kill" women who have premarital sex because she can no longer honestly attest to the paternity of any children she can have. That's still barbaric in our culture since we have birth control, paternity testing, we don't see women as the property of men and we don't ascribed blame to an entire family because one person did something wrong. But nonetheless you can see a system of honour there based on being honest.

      The problem however is that honour, although it is natural to desire it, is not an easy thing to develop or maintain. It requires hard work and mental discipline to keep ones emotions in check from pushing us to lie, deny the truth, or fall into wishful thinking.

      But the important thing is that honesty is the foundation of morality. Honesty leads to honour and honour leads to character. Forget this moral relativism crap, it'll only disempower you or worse lead you into committing dishonourable acts without noticing how depraved you've become.

      Through honour we can approach moral problems with reason. Morality should never be about laws. Laws are at best a guide to justice, not justice itself. It should be about what matters, what is true and what is the best outcome for society (the best outcome for the individual is always amoral because morality exists to protect society not the individual, individuals living on their own have no need for morality).

      • April 27, 2012 at 10:40 am #

        You know, I don’t care for flattery one bit. I see flatterers as dishonourable manipulators.

        I disagree. Civility and manners are the domain of scholars who are prepared to have an adult discussion that addresses the points, and a little flattery is my way of saying: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That is because of a scholar’s commitment to the advancement of knowledge.

        The flattery is honest, and I give it because, as an aspiring scholar, I can afford to show humility. If you take that badly, or see humility as weakness, then it is not my perogative to insist on my sincerity. Your reality really is your own.

        “Well, after everything you wrote up there you’ve exposed yourself as a moral relativist and a believer in the tyranny of the majority.”

        You are falaciously putting words in my mouth, they are yours words, not mine. The tyranny of the majority is democracy. And I believe that some values are superior to others, such as humility, civility and principle. I recognise that others may not share those values, so maintaining a deterrent is necessary, and where vigilance is necessary.

        Honesty is where the moral concept of ‘honour’ comes from.

        That is a wise statement that I will ponder on.

        he is straightforward and truthful.

        Then, by your reasoning, diplomacy is anathema to honesty. Because there are times where one omits to avoid upsetting an interlocutor, or to save them face. Therein lies the importance of subtlety and equivocation.

        I hate spin, but at the same time recognise that the relationships between people can be complex and delicate. Telling an unhinged man that his wife has just died may push him over the edge. There is a time to tell him that, after he has calmed down. Honesty can be abjured, or delayed, in the pursuit of diplomacy. And dishonesty isn’t always intentional, because we only have so few words to tailor a message.

        Moral relativism makes one pathetic and weak.

        You value strength and survival of the fittest, and within it I say lies the seed of human ingenuity. At the same time, the measure of a society is how it treats those that have no means to help themselves; the ill, the old, the infirm. Hawking would not have survived to contribute in a society that deemed him valueless.

        pushing us to lie, deny the truth, or fall into wishful thinking.

        Lying is always an option, but it is a debt that must be repaid.

        honesty is the foundation of morality

        Since “honour killing” is founded on honesty, does that make honour killing moral?

        Forget this moral relativism crap, it’ll only disempower you or worse lead you into committing dishonourable acts without noticing how depraved you’ve become.

        The problem with brashness and beligerance is that you project onto others what you think they believe, without actually asking them what they believe. You have made a mistake, and I say again, I believe some morals are superior hence cannot be relative, but I also recognise that not everyone shares those superior values. Those need to be either educated or managed.

        what is the best outcome for society

        Communists honestly believe that socialism is the best outcome for society?

        Thanks to poorly designed welfare policies that effectively punish the people who are responsible, ethical, hard working, highly educated, over taxed and now culturally infertile.

        I agree on this point. The industrious should be rewarded, a man should be rendered the fruit of his labours.

        “Also, kindly never use my real name in posts on the internet”

        So, did I use the name of your facebook profile, and you edited the post to remove it? I would say that a small psuedonym offers scant protection if someone sought you to do harm to you. Part of intellectual honesty is standing by what you have said, yes? That is the nature of free speech.

        Otherwise, I will respect your request for anonymity (as thin as it is by your own design).

        • April 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

          “I disagree.”

          Oh, I was wrong about my feelings on this matter? Ooops. Silly me. You know me better than I do.

          “Civility and manners are the domain of scholars who are prepared to have an adult discussion that addresses the points, and a little flattery is my way of saying: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That is because of a scholar’s commitment to the advancement of knowledge.”

          See, that sounds condescending to me. I don’t know, maybe I’m just less intelligent than you?

          “The flattery is honest.”

          Honest or not, it’s flattery, it’s superfluous. Due to the difficulty in attaining or describing real knowledge I doubt I do ever more than stumble upon it blindly if ever.

          “The tyranny of the majority is democracy.”

          Hence the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson was an extraordinary visionary, he saw the problems of the old Greek and Roman models of democracy and came up with a brilliant solution. I just had to say it, I admire the man so much, wish he was still alive today.

          “Then, by your reasoning, diplomacy is anathema to honesty. Because there are times where one omits to avoid upsetting an interlocutor, or to save them face.”

          Yes, it is. Helping someone save face is necessary to avoid violence very often. This attitude won’t do in academia nor in politics. Dictatorships use diplomacy, it isn’t something democracies should dirty their hands with because the broader implications of democracy demand honesty because without it the people can’t be informed about who they vote for. Look at the incredible level of secrecy our governments are allowing themselves just to save face. If my local MP is an imbecile I feel I have a right to know this and it would be unethical for anyone to hide this information from me because come polling day I won’t be able to freely cast my vote. Same with academia, in the history of science this has happened several times when scientific progress ground to a halt in a field for 20-30 years because they had to wait for the older gentlemen to die off before it was acceptable to point out that they were wrong!

          I understand diplomacy works well in other situations, but in politics and academics it causes problems!

          “You value strength and survival of the fittest, and within it I say lies the seed of human ingenuity. At the same time, the measure of a society is how it treats those that have no means to help themselves; the ill, the old, the infirm. Hawking would not have survived to contribute in a society that deemed him valueless.”

          Not quite right, Hawkings survived a disorder that kills almost everyone else with it. Therefore Hawkings was strong, or ‘fit’. It is not the strongest of the species that survive but those most adaptable to change. For example, big muscular people die fastest in a famine, the cold kills more thin people than fat people, and predators eat more fat people than the others. As a species with three different body types we’re flexible for different survival needs, but individually we’re specialised in ways often quite personally inconvenient.

          Personally, I advocate an equal opportunity system. Everyone should have a chance to prove themselves with some fair opportunities to succeed. If they succeed, let them own that success, and if they fail, let them own that failure.

          If we can help the weak, then we should do so, if we cannot help them, it’s best to just let them fend for themselves, even if that means they might die. In the old days this was called “going into exile,” and it worked by keeping the tribe strong most of the time. Although sometimes it didn’t and those outcasts came back and took revenge. Good on them.

          “Lying is always an option, but it is a debt that must be repaid.”

          Lying is just exhausting… A lie is an afront to nature, once you start lying, you need to keep lying over and over to protect that lie. Eventually it’ll get too much for anyone to bare.

          “Since “honour killing” is founded on honesty, does that make honour killing moral?”

          Yes, it does. However, the punishment does not fit the crime.

          “So, did I use the name of your facebook profile, and you edited the post to remove it?”

          Yes I did… I also forgot to mention groupies and workmates… they can be worse.

          It’s hardly a perfect method yes… It offers some protection which is better than none.

          • April 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

            See, that sounds condescending to me. I don’t know, maybe I’m just less intelligent than you?

            I thought you were a scholar who gave these topics considerable thought, and hence were accorded the respect of that thought committed. Unless, by admission, you are not a scholar?

            Hence the Bill of Rights.

            The problem with a Bill of Rights is that it gives groups who believed they are victimised 100 slights with which to quote, verbatim, are their rights. It gives rise to lawfare and a litigious, politically correct society. In effect, the noisiest activists are those that benefit and use it to cow a majority (such as the provocative title of Anita Heiss’s book which only has one legally correct answer in Australia), rather than the masses of a society using it to protect its way of life. Case in point when, in England, an Islamic group filed a complaint against a magazine company for being Islamaphoic in relation to an article, and the article authors (for a Gay magazine!) counter-filed with Scotland yard to say that the Islamic group was being homophobic! There are many activist groups who have an axe to grind and are looking for reasons to be offended.

            Instead, a judiciary with common sense should deliberate and make their findings public. In the above instance, the judge should find, “you are both stupid, dismissed”… I call it the “you’re stupid get out” rule, for particularly vexatious litigants. If their determination is non-sensical, then the law should be clarified by an elected politician bringing a bill to the house.

            That being said, a Bill of Rights is better than a racial majority in Malaysia voting for affirmative action, and the govt of 50+ years assisting this with gerrymandering and other funny business to stay in power.

            I understand diplomacy works well in other situations, but in politics and academics it causes problems!

            It is corrupting both science and politics today, case in point, “there will be no carbon tax under a govt I lead”

            We now have a govt that is gaming the system and is more desperate to stay in power with “whatever it takes” than living up to any sort of core values.

            Dictatorships use diplomacy, it isn’t something democracies should dirty their hands with because the broader implications of democracy demand honesty because without it the people can’t be informed about who they vote for.

            Unfortunately, we live in the age of the media. All you need is one sound bite on repeat (e.g. “the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks”) and you are screwed. Providing that sound bite honestly is counted as a “lack of political discipline.”

            Admitting you don’t have an answer betrays a lack of competancy or confidence. So politicans start the sophistry…

            If my local MP is an imbecile I feel I have a right to know this and it would be unethical for anyone to hide this information from me because come polling day I won’t be able to freely cast my vote.

            There is no law that says a local MP cannot equivocate to avoid giving you that sound bite.

            In effect, they are deceiving you to collect your vote. Now it becomes a game less of listening to what they say than listening to what they DON’T say. This recently has proved even more wrong however, when politicians can lie to your face and get away with it (there will be no carbon tax…)

            Ironically, the value of honesty is that you are not allowed to mislead parliament, and now allowed to utter that which is deliberately untrue (otherwise they suffer contempt of parliament). There are many phrases uttered by a politician at a press conference that they dare not repeat verbatim in parliament. Unfortunately there is no law that stops an MP from giving a “non-answer” in the form of an evasive answer, equivocation and sophistry. To not allow them to use falacies would be enforcing self-incrimination on them. That may be an end in itself, but I doubt the lawmakers selling you the laws would foist such a straightjacket upon themselves.

            In fact, diplomacy between a politician and the electorate has a name, it is called “spin.” I detest it, but see why it is necessary for a politician’s survival.

            In the beginning, we did not have “professional politicians”… the first parliament of Australia had tradesmen, architects, merchants, professionals sitting on its benches. Today many of the younger politicans are products of the party machinary and walking printouts of the party mantra.

            several times when scientific progress ground to a halt in a field for 20-30 years because they had to wait for the older gentlemen to die off before it was acceptable to point out that they were wrong!

            That happens all the time not because of a failure of science, but a failure of human nature in governing science. The correct answer for the younger to the older scientist is a mathematical refutation of the older scientist. Unfortunately , that won’t happen while the older scientist determines funding, or that a university board judges that funding the younger’s research would detract from the prestiege of the university. The only correct answer in science is a mathematical answer, but there are many things that stop you from getting there.

            It happens on several scientific topics. It’s a clear conflict of interest, and the result is picking winners that may not actually be winners.

            Not quite right, Hawkings survived a disorder that kills almost everyone else with it. Therefore Hawkings was strong, or ‘fit’.

            That is a good point, that I will researched further.

            That being said, if he was in Nazi germany, Hawking and Einstein would both have been put to death for their “weakness” before they completed their most astounding contributions to science. On that leg my point remains; that a society that devalues the “weak” in its eyes is one that writes off their potential.

            Lying is just exhausting… A lie is an afront to nature, once you start lying, you need to keep lying over and over to protect that lie. Eventually it’ll get too much for anyone to bare.

            Unfortunately, lying to and deluding ourselves is the easiest lie to maintain. Some lie reflexively and compulsively and, by exception, proves that for some this statement “it’ll get too much for anyone to bare” is not the case.

            The most fun is when you figure out someone is lying and catch them i the lie.

            Yes I did… I also forgot to mention groupies and workmates… they can be worse.

            That is regrettable. You have my understanding on this issue.

            You know me better than I do.

            Ever since when did me disagreeing on something have anything to do with knowing you better than I do, pray-tell? 🙂 Is the only valid opinion that of Jason the dominator? 😛

            Honest or not, it’s flattery, it’s superfluous.

            It serves a purpose, the purpose being to treat the other person with respect and civility to fascilitate discussion. When that respect is not accorded, that upsets you. Which way would you like it, Jason? Flattery or barbs? I will heed it and give you what you want. It sounds like barbs, but your response in another arena says otherwise. So, I am confused.

    • April 27, 2012 at 8:58 am #

      Oh and on bullies, saying it ain’t so doesn’t make it not so.

      One can’t get exact figures for the birth rate of bullies and as one gets poorer, less employed, less employable, more criminal, less responsible and less educated the birth rate rises higher and higher. Thanks to poorly designed welfare policies that effectively punish the people who are responsible, ethical, hard working, highly educated, over taxed and now culturally infertile.

  8. April 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Hey Jason I really loved reading this one. Big ups yet again. The irony with being tolerant is, it never works to anyone’s benefit because there is always a group of intolerant people who abuse peoples tolerance in order to get their way.

    However, if absolutely EVERYONE was tolerant, then we wouldn’t change anything. Our traditions would be the same, things that have been changed in order to “not” offend another party, would never have had to change. Because everyone is tolerant.

    But because there are intolerant people, we also need to be equally intolerant, lest we get trampled on.

    I don’t think that intolerance makes the world a better place. But partial tolerance, which is what we have now, is definitely worse than intolerance, because only one side ever wins: the intolerant side.

    • April 27, 2012 at 9:01 am #

      There are extremes to intolerance that are nasty, but I think these are biologically harder to sustain than excessive tolerance simply because effort needs to be put into being intolerant.

      People used to talk a lot about honour and character. I think it’s no coincidence these things disappeared with the spread of moral relativism post world war 2. Honour and character demand a certain level of intolerance to create and maintain them.

  9. April 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    Jason, you have said previously said that you believe men have a higher tolerance for pain than women. Given your views on tolerance as outlined in this article, does it not therefore stand that women are actually holistically stronger than men because they do not tolerate pain? Should women be mocking us, because we can tolerate pain more than them? Perhaps if men were less tolerant to pain the world may be a different place…???

    • April 26, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

      No. I just used the wrong word when I said that. What I should have said was ‘I believe that men have a higher endurance for pain than women on average.” My mistake.

    • April 29, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

      Lol, nice try Stu 😉

      • April 29, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

        lol, I don’t think endurance and tolerance are so far apart, but anyways… 🙂

  10. Kathy
    May 15, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    I’m a woman and I like nice guys. Don’t speak for us, please.

  11. Amfortas
    May 18, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    Tolerance IS a Virtue but all virtues can become vices if taken to extremes. Discrimination is a virtue too and it is noticeble that Tolerance for the outrageous is demanded whilst discrimination between the sound and the unsound is comdemned. By the lefties, of course.

    The ‘Left’, inclusive of feminism, PC, cultural marxism et al, would not know a virtue if it had teeth and bit their arses. They use ‘new’ meanings to falsly claim an unearned ‘high moral ground’. They use virtue as a weapon to gain advantage and privilege and act as a shield against those who would crtiticise and expose their coercions.

    Virtues are derived from abilities of mind and heart. Cognition and Emotion. Whilst lauding emotion the false demanders actually exhibit ‘sentimentality’. Their considerations, which in a mature adult would be an effort of mind, are restricted to the mechanics of the mouth and even their ears are in neutral so they cannot hear, let alone listen to the verbal sludge emanating.

    Whilst acknowleging the effort put into Jason’s short polemic, it is of litlle use to deny being Tolerant when such a virtue – the real virtue – is so needed. Nevertheless, this is a case of accepting the Singer whilst criticisng an off-note in the Song.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. And the second day came « The Blog of Bryon Lape - April 28, 2012

    […] The Virtue of Intolerance (intentious.com) […]

  2. Respect/Dignity Tolerance/Acceptance more than just word choice… « A Robin Hood's Musing - April 30, 2012

    […] The Virtue of Intolerance (intentious.com) […]

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: