Can I even talk about this without triggering a series of shallow debates? Whenever you talk about the extreme views of a religion posed on others it
always turns into a religion-VS-religion debate. When you talk about insane political views forced onto the People it always turns into a
Left-VS-Right debate. When you talk about racial views by politicians, policemen or business owners it always turns into a racial debate. So I am
going to ignore ALL of these groups so that my point can be understood and taken for what it is.
We all know that things are getting quite insane in modern society (here in North America at least.) The laws, bylaws and regulations imposed on the
People to deny their freedoms to express their thoughts, beliefs and traditions (whatever they may be) has gone to such an extreme level as only the
most paranoid or cynical individuals could have foreseen such a time as this thirty years ago.
These days, riot police gear up and march down public streets, not to stand guard in case rioters start rioting, but to await their order to charge
into and brutalize innocent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens for practicing their right for peaceful protest. This has of course happened before in
our histories, but in my lifetime I have never seen this before. In my country (Canada) I have never heard the police publically admit to acting as
provocateurs, mainstream media complain about national-level election fraud or the head of the secret service warn the public that their political
leaders are falling under the persuasion of foreign governments. Things didn’t used to be this harsh, this extreme.
School boards and governments are bringing in regulations to restrict practices—and even themes and words—that are considered offensive to other
people. If someone stands up with their friends and says they are offended by something, it seems that everyone must bend over backwards to
accommodate them. To what end? Until we are all dressed in gray, our faces and hands covered? Until we all speak like robots, using only
I may be offended by a giant shrimp monument built at my favorite park because maybe I’m allergic to shrimp and they look ugly to me. So, I hate
shrimp and am therefore offended by large fountain over my favorite pond being shaped like one. I cannot imagine storming off and barging into the
mayor’s office, slamming down my fists on his table and demanding that the shrimp be removed from the park. I cannot imagine then storming out,
forming a group of protestors and then marching down the streets—not to fight world hunger or something important to the world I live in—but to
get the shrimp removed from the park.
I cannot imagine reporters coming to me and then for me to answer them: “I am outraged to see a shrimp in my park because I am offended by it being
here! I do not care if other people like the shrimp, nor do I care that this is a Democracy and that everyone is entitled to their opinions, tastes
and beliefs too! I do not like it and these people I rallied up agree with me, so just take down the blasted shrimp!”
How insane would I have to be? What kind of drug would I have to be on? What kind of hypnosis would I have to be under to actually think and act this
way? It baffles the mind!
Now we hear about “tolerance”. Besides the fact that “tolerance” implies that compassion is not required, this socio-political term makes
about as much sense as any other we hear from the “politically correct” movement. This movement is what strips away people’s freedom to think,
feel and express anything which this crowd regards as “intolerant”. It’s like trying to force everyone into a box, in neat order and arms bound,
so that no one can disagree.
From this movement we have another term: “agree to disagree”. When I first heard this term in high school I was baffled by its meaning. I thought:
“I DO agree to disagree, isn’t that what an argument IS? We’ve agreed to disagree!” If you take the expression literally it actually means the
exact opposite of what it actually means. The term is a deliberate deception. It makes sense at face value, therefore you cannot disagree with it, but
it implies that “rising above” the argument is the civilized way of handling the situation—not just by not getting angry, but by actually
stepping away from the debate all together. Somehow by not resolving anything we have cleared up the problem. The implication here is that the
disagreeing IS the problem, not the issue itself.
OK, so what if the courts were to make child prostitution legal? It would be inappropriate to argue against it, because it’s just your silly opinion
after all and the important thing is that we all get along. Can you see the obvious mind control mechanism in this form of thought?
Getting back to “tolerance”: if a division of people have a view that is offensive to you, you should keep your mouth shut. To do otherwise means
that you are intolerant (discriminate against race, religion, etc.) A good citizen is a tolerant person who never expresses an intolerant thought.
Maybe a group of Nazis are plotting to take over your country and they want to execute suspected criminals because they believe they have been
appointed by God to do so. Be tolerant, now!
I am using extreme and obvious examples that we could all agree with in order to make my point. “Political correctness” is used to weaken the
minds of individuals, to silence them either through creating social scorn or by convincing them that they are bad people to express thoughts which
differ from the norm (the “norm” being a manufactured theory which people feel required to follow suit with but often will privately express
disapproval of (we are not really androids but many will play the part.)
The term “tolerance” is just one example of how “political correctness” ignores compassion (something real and tangible) and replaces it with
pure theory and speculation. Someone may be outraged by an atrocity and speak passionately against it—a real example of humanity at its raw, honest
best. But if the words which come out are “intolerant” (whether by intention or bad word usage) the “politically correct” crowd moves in on
them and starts the name calling: “racist”, “bigot”, “hater”, “moron,” etc., ignoring A. his intention, B. his honest emotional
reaction and C. his right as a human being to express how he thinks and fees as one.
edit on 2-5-2012 by LoneCloudHopper because: (no reason