by Jerry Richardson 7/30/14
The 1st Commandment of Progressivism is “thou shalt be ‘tolerant’.” But, what does that mean? In today’s America, we can find two different meanings for tolerance, I’ll label them: 1) classical tolerance, and 2) progressive tolerance.
Classical tolerance, still used by many Conservatives, means the rejection of coercion or force as a means of changing anyone’s thoughts, beliefs, or opinions. At the same time, exercising classical tolerance does not, in any way, preclude public dissent or disagreement with any thoughts, beliefs, or opinions.
Classical tolerance has been famously supported by a quote often misattributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Progressive tolerance contains no such precept.
Progressive tolerance encourages coercion and force, if needed, in support of “tolerance” for politically-correct, i.e., progressive viewpoints; and progressive tolerance is often viciously opposed to dissent from accepted, politically-correct viewpoints.
So for progressive tolerance the proper saying is: “I disapprove of what you say, and I will force you not to think, believe, or say anything of which I disapprove.”
Any resistance to this demanded “tolerance” is immediately labeled “intolerance.”
Even though “intolerance” has become the unpardonable sin with Progressives, ironically intolerance (the real thing) is extensively used against progressive opponents. Of course, its use is justified as demanding “tolerance” for some particular politically-correct viewpoint.
The “tolerance” demanded is nothing short of abject agreement—zero dissent—with the particular viewpoint in question. Coerced acceptance or silence from any opposition to an approved, politically-correct, progressive viewpoint has become the essence of progressive “tolerance.”
“It is fascinating and troubling how we have corrupted our own language. The original definition implies that to tolerate is to allow. The newer definition goes a step further and says that even disagreeing with a group or idea is intolerant.
“In a well-intentioned attempt to be more inclusive, our society has actually become more exclusive. It has become politically incorrect to disagree with social movements – any resistance through either rhetoric or demonstration is labeled intolerant. The glaring irony is how intolerant our new definition actually is. It takes away the debate.”
The recent punishment for a hapless Californian accused of “intolerance”, in effect, is demonstrated by the Internet lynching of former FireFox CEO, Brendan Eich:
“Add another victim to the ever-growing list created by the not-so-tolerant left for failing to walk in lockstep with their mindless groupthink.
“After dating site OKCupid blocked Firefox because of his [Eich] support for traditional marriage (in spite of the left smearing him as being anti-gay), Firefox forced him to resign amidst the uproar raised by the liberal left loons.
“In spite of Mozilla chair Mitchell Baker admitting that “I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness”, Eich is the latest casualty silenced and harmed by the left.”
Brendan Eich was not forced out of Mozilla due to any accusation of on-the-job misbehavior or out-of-line attitude:
“I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.” — Mozilla chair Mitchell Baker
Eich was forced out for believing-in and politically supporting the traditional definition of marriage. He was punished (forced to resign) because of his dissent with a politically correct viewpoint on “gay-marriage.”
Don’t miss the enormity contained in the specifics:
The political beliefs of a private citizen were made the grounds (the only grounds) for his forced resignation from his business employment. This is a frightening example of an Internet lynch-mob persecuting a private citizen for groupthink-declared, organizational misbehavior.
Remember, Brandan Eich broke no law. His privately-held political belief was presumed to make him unavoidably a bigot in his organizational position—that was his unforgivable misbehavior.
So, presto, the bigot must go!
However, no accusation of any actual on-the-job, bigoted behavior was or has been lodged against Brandan Eich.
What we have actually witnessed is punishment for a presumed thought-crime.
You don’t need to re-read Orwell’s 1984 to understand the heinous nature of thought-crime mores or laws; you can see the results in America today in 2014.
And what was Brandan Eich’s thought-crime for which he was punished?
It was his unacceptable political belief—unacceptable political belief.
We are seeing a steadily increasing collection of incidents where private citizens, in America, are being punished—not publically debated, not subdued at the ballot box, but publically punished—for expressing their personal political beliefs. Is this still America?
Tell me we don’t live in dangerous times.
© 2014, Jerry Richardson • (3076 views)