CLASSICAL [Paleo] LIBERAL DEFINITION OF TOLERANCE:
Modern day “tolerance” is a bit different than previous days iterations. The “tolerance of old” assumed disagreement in its definition.
It basically said that two people have two views of the world, they can get together [hopefully amiably], and make their points vigorously, walk away either saying “I never thought about that,” or, “I still disagree but let’s meet up next week for pickle ball.”
This definition says you are tolerant by amiably disagreeing. Again, this historical tolerance accepted disagreement.
THE MODERN [Woke, Progressive, Left] ILLIBERAL DEFINITION OF TOLERANCE:
The new definition of tolerance rejects disagreement at the outset. This new form tolerance says that if you disagree, you are INTOLERANT.
One of the keys to this view is the person who is saying another is intolerant for disagreeing, is not amiable. They are activists. They want all of society to think a certain way… or else.
They also posit that the “disagreeing” person is not just wrong, but in many ways evil. And to prove this they attack a sign around their neck that reads any number of these labels: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.).
And voilà, this disagreeable person, is a troglodyte deserving of shunning from polite [so-called] society.
…..Technically, tolerance is an attitude of putting up with those with whom we differ. Tolerance presupposes there are differences and yet, in order to get along, we tolerate our opponents as fellow human beings, Americans and neighbors. We find ways to work together for the common good while still maintaining our differences.
But, with the death of trust, tolerance has gone from being a mature and honorable tension to being a binary state of war because trust has been evaporated from the equation. Let me explain: Historically, there have always been ethical binaries. That is, ethical pairs that were either/or. For example, something is either right or wrong, good or evil, black or white, up or down. But many ethical components are non-binary — think on a spectrum. For example, cold, cool, tepid, warm, hot. Throughout history, tolerance was non-binary. It was more needed when relating to those who differed greatly, less so with those more aligned with us.
But, today, the ethics of tolerance have become binary, either/or, and this has eliminated the basic meaning of tolerance altogether.
Today, love and hate are binary. If you don’t love something, if you don’t agree, don’t applaud, and don’t acknowledge ideas or behavior as ethically acceptable, then you are a hater. Consequently, there is no longer a sense of tolerance. The whole concept has been wiped from the page of society in our day. When it comes to our enemies, we don’t tolerate, we terminate.…
This form of “tolerance” has dangerous connotations in wanting to get people by coercion or force to think one way. Totalitarianism, or “total thought.” This leads to programs like “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)” – which are forcing “total thought,” what Tammy Bruce many years ago titled her book about her early encounters with it: “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds”
Today, politicians are seriously floating ideas of “re-education camps.” As an example, here is Hillary Clinton speaking about Trump supporters:
“Because at some point, maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members, but something needs to happen” (WALL STREET JOURNAL: “The Totalitarian Heart of Hillary Clinton: The 2016 Election Denier Calls For “Formal Deprogramming” Of Trump Supporters“)
The point made in the title of the Wall Street Journal article is that Hillary vehemently denied the election of 2016:
Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020, which is that in 2017 Democrats challenged nine state’s electors and in 2021 Republicans challenged six state’s electors:
9 VS. 6
…In the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton‘s 227. During the joint session on January 6, 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama’s votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida’s votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia’s votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina’s votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing “massive voter suppression” after Mississippi’s votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan’s votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, “I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask ‘Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'” after the announcement of Wyoming’s votes.
In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.
In total, Republicans made objections to votes from six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. By the end of the joint session, Biden’s 306 electoral votes were certified, just as Trump’s votes had been certified in 2017….
You may think that the idea of reeducation camps in America is crazy. But diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are basically that. A tyrannical attack on thought. Even THE ATLANTIC knows it is an affront to freedom in their piece titled: “The Worst DEI Policy in Higher Education: At stake: the First Amendment rights and academic freedom of 61,000 professors who teach 1.9 million students”
… Under the changes to California’s education code, all community-college employees will be evaluated in a way that places “significant emphasis” on “antiracist” and “DEIA competencies.” […] For professors, that means all will be judged, whether in hiring, promotion, or tenure decisions, on their embrace of controversial social-justice concepts as those concepts are understood and defined by state education bureaucrats
… “Under the previous faculty contract, faculty were evaluated for their ‘demonstrated ability to successfully teach students from cultures other than one’s own,’” the FIRE lawsuit notes. “Under the DEIA Rules, however, they are now evaluated on their ‘demonstration of, or progress toward, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) related competencies and teaching and learning practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles.’” Before, professors were judged on whether they “successfully teach students.” Now they’ll be judged on whether they show progress toward abstract competencies that are theorized to help them successfully teach students.
That is a degradation, and Chancellor Christian should reverse course. Many First Amendment experts believe that the new guidelines will be found to violate the civil rights of faculty members. And even if they are upheld, their language and implementation suggestions are so incompetently drafted that even a leading proponent of equity-mindedness can’t quite endorse them as written. Whatever one thinks of social-justice ideology, there are far stronger versions of it.
….we identified 135 attacks on pro-life entities and people between when the leak occurred and September 24th, 2022. By contrast, only six cases involve pro-choice people attacked. We obtained the cases from news searches and various sources, but the pro-abortion organizations refused to respond to repeated requests for additional cases despite efforts over three weeks.
The bottom line is that after the Dobbs decision was leaked, there was over 22 times more violence directed against pro-life groups than pro-choice organizations. However, if the media is less likely to cover violence pro-life organizations, the 22 times estimate will underestimate the relative violence against these groups.….
House Democrat Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries smears pro-life Americans as “extreme” and “the threat in this country” pic.twitter.com/0n38dkm2Ho
Hilarious. She [Democrat House Manager and Representative from Florida’s 10th congressional district, Val Demings] argues the U.S. abandoned Ukraine during Obama Admin! “Demings suggested that Ukrainians died in their war with Russia but those soldiers died during the Obama years” (GATEWAY PUNDIT):
….Ernst made it clear she was irritated with what she portrayed as hypocrisy by the Democrats.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), she said, voted against the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, “which included lethal aid to Ukraine.” Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Hakeem Jeffreys (D-NY), and Nadler (D-NY) voted against the last one, which also included such spending.
“This president has done more than they have, and he has done more than the previous administration did,” she said.
Ernst noted that Russia had invaded Crimea in 2014, and President Obama did nothing but send blankets and non-leah military aid. “Blankets don’t throw lead down-range,” said Ernst, a U.S. Army veteran.
In contrast, she noted, President Trump had armed Ukraine with actual weapons, giving it the opportunity to mount a defense against Russia.
“House Democrats, these House managers, did nothing of the sort to provide that assistance to Ukraine, and yet now they are on their high horse about President Trump not doing enough for Ukraine.
“This administration has done more than the previous administration did when Crimea was being invaded. I have very strong feelings about that.”
Ernst later added that the president’s temporary hold on security assistance had not affected current spending for Ukraine.
Of course the VERY AWESOME Elise Stefanik made this point a while back!
Day 3 of Adam Schiff’s flimsy case for impeachment. This is the weakest case for impeachment of a President in our nation’s history.
…The Iowa Republican also said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who is an impeachment manager, along with House Democratic Reps. Zoe Lofgren of California, Sylvia Garcia of Texas and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, all who either opposed or didn’t vote for national defense bills that included lethal aid to Ukraine.
“Four of the House managers have voted against lethal aid to Ukraine and they can sit there and lecture about this President not doing enough for Ukraine,” Ms. Ernst said. “This president has done more than they have and he has done more than the previous administration did.”…
….Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter who hated Trump, as his comments on social media showed.
But in the face of all evidence that Hodgkinson was a Democrat animated to go on a shooting rampage by his own political frustrations, New York Times political reporter Glenn Thrush looked to Trump.
“Any debate about civility in politics begins with Trump,” he said Thursday on Twitter. “No one has degraded discourse more, while embracing the fringe.”
Whatever “fringe” Trump appealed to, none of them have picked up an assault rifle to gun down a congressman.
That was a Bernie Bro.
In an effort to even the score between the GOP and Democrats, The New York Times editorial board chocked the incident up to “vicious American politics” and repeated the false claim that “the link to political incitement was clear” between 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and the 2011 shooting of then-Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
The paper later removed that part from its editorial, admitting that there was “no such link.”
Hodgkinson’s Facebook page showed that he belonged to the groups “Terminate the Republican Party” and “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans.” One note on his Facebook said, “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
But a bemused editorial in the Washington Post asked, “Who knows what mixture of madness and circumstance causes someone to pick up a gun and go on a rampage?”
The Washington Post then helped spread responsibility for the tragedy among everyone, saying that it should “cause a gut check about what passes for political discourse in this country.”
Hodgkinson was a partisan Democrat. Before his shooting spree, he asked Reps. Ron DeSantis and Jeff Duncan as they left the field early whether it was Republicans or Democrats practicing.
But a willfully-clueless Scott Pelley of the CBS “Evening News” ended his Thursday night program decrying unspecified “leaders and political commentators who set an example” for having “led us into an abyss of violent rhetoric.”
When an outspoken Democratic voter opens fire on a group of Republicans practicing baseball, the media blame everyone. Or just Trump.
It’s the same thing they did during the 2016 campaign.
In May last year, anti-Trump protesters shut down a campaign rally in Albuquerque, N.M. Rioters lit the city ablaze, vandalized property, and threw rocks at cops.
But the New York Times said two months prior to the riot that it’s Trump who “gives license to violence” for saying he’d like to “punch” a protester. The liberal Mother Jones said the same month that Trump is “basically encouraging violence now,” and a headline at the website Vox declared that “the problem with violence at Trump rallies starts with Trump himself.”
Why isn’t any of the violence coming from the people who support the guy who’s supposedly fueling it?….