Racist Sexist Fascist

[T]olerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It's a one-way street. You cannot say to someone that who you are is wrong, an abomination, is horrible, get a room, and all of those other things that people said about Michael Sam, and not be forced -- not forced, but not be made to understand that what you're saying and what you're doing is wrong.
But what you think is who you are. Doesn't that follow from your own ideology? You aren't your sex, or we're sexist. You aren't your race or the color of your skin, or we're racist. You're not your religion, because we are all free to criticize the tenets of our religion and take them as metaphorically as we want. You're not your upbringing for the same reason. You're certainly not bound by your physical 'gender.'

To be free, on the left-liberal reading, is to be free to self-determine. You are what you decide to be. That means you are what you think. You are what you choose to believe in.

Thus if one cannot say to someone that what they are is wrong, one cannot criticize thoughts or ideas once the thinker of those thoughts has identified with them. That follows logically from what has been said before.

This is a contradiction of the will. Willing this understanding of 'who we are' means that you can't say that "You can't say that who you are is wrong." It's madness. It's irrational. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Or are you a racist? A sexist? You've confessed to being a fascist.


Dad29 said...

Yah, well, look where all that logic-stuff got Socrates.

E Hines said...

Your argument, though, about Progressive thought (which is what I say the Left has become, what Liberalism has descended to--Hillary herself has identified her ideology as that of early 20th Century Progressivism, which is the Progressivism of Herb Croly, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson; Obama's behavior is indistinguishable from their national democracy in outcome; Levin's and Sander's ideology is indistinguishable from Progressivism, for all that they profess Democratic Party and Socialism) proceeds from a false premise: that Progressive thought is logical.

It is not. It's gutturally emotional. It's of a piece with raw bigotry. That's not to say that it is bigotry, though, even if the outcomes are indistinguishable from bigotry. It is, however, disparate impact.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

But these are the heirs of the Enlightenment, as they will be pleased to tell you: of thinkers like Kant, from whom we have the idea of a contradiction of the will. Let them answer it.

MikeD said...

They won't.

Ymar Sakar said...

Heirs of the Dark Enlightenment. For every force, there is a positive a negative, matter and anti-matter, heads and tails. For every bright light, there will be a deeper shadow.

The slaves think they are free in the US.

E Hines said...

I would be most interested in their answers, had they the courage to offer any. Or the self-assurance to stoop so low as to instruct a mere Conservative.

But they are wrong about their status as heirs; they're the only ones who would insist that an existence of a claim is its proof. Bastard son status is the best they can achieve.

On the matter of balance, I point out that there is a vast overweighting of matter over anti-matter, and suitably placed lights, even weak ones, overwhelm the darkest shadows in our Universe. And you haven't tossed my coin....

On the other hand, in that same Universe, dark matter may have a vastly greater mass than "our" matter. But our science is uncertain there.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

The Left are not animated by science, but by evil.

When humans take symbols too far, they go into extreme fallacy. The idea that you, a single human, can know the balance because you think you know how much matter or antimatter is in the universe... you have already failed to claim divine status above your own.

Texan99 said...

The guy is using "tolerance" in a strange way, to mean "approving our point of view, while our reciprocal opinion of you depends entirely on whether you get with our program." If you use the word in this sense, "tolerate" as "obey," the one-way action makes perfect sense: you "tolerate" an order, and you don't expect your superior to "tolerate" anything but your obedience in return.