The fallacy of tolerance, acceptance, and respect

Awful truth #18: Acceptance and respect are irrelevant. You have no right to either.

“There are few as intolerant as those who preach tolerance.”

            Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason

Decent folks are painfully aware that those who espouse tolerance, acceptance, and respect are some of the most petty, mean-spirited, and vile people to have ever plagued God’s green earth.  These insufferable scolds, who fancy themselves compassionate and enlightened, are also humorless pricks.  This is an important clue, dear readers: Never trust anyone who lacks a robust sense of humor, especially that which is missing a component of self-deprecation.  (R-rated version: Fascists are mirthless motherfuckers—and these espousers are indeed fascists.)  

Tolerance?  Pshaw!  These are the intolerant asshats who complain about a comedian whose show they’re not forced to attend; who complain about a movie they’re not forced to watch; who complain about a book that nobody has a gun to their head and says, “read this—or else.”  It is not the complaining that makes them fascists.  What makes them fascists is that they want the comedian’s show cancelled and career destroyed, the movie not shown (or produced in the first place), the book not published (or written in the first place).  Equally complicit in an Orwellian thoughtcrime, in the demented minds of these real-world fascists, are the people who dare to like the comedian, movie, or book.  Ironically, these fascist asshats are the same ones who want to force children to read disgusting age-inappropriate books over the objections of parents—especially over the objections of parents.     

These are the Brown Shirts among us who carp (always shrilly) about the names of products, language in an Ian Fleming or Roald Dahl novel, a statue of a long-dead slave owner, team names, movie casting decisions, and on and on and godhelpus on.  They obsessively scour every animal, vegetable, and mineral for offense, with the same desperation as a fentanyl addict picking over discarded pieces of aluminum foil.  One is addicted to outrage and manufactures drama to fill an empty life, the other is beholden to a chemical narcotic.  Both addictions are devastating to society, but at least the fentanyl addict isn’t a smug, fascist asshole.  

These strident fascists are gaslighters who are definitely not keen on tolerance, as anyone who doesn’t fully embrace their pathology finds out.  They are, though, keen-as-hell on the forced acceptance of their abhorrent ideology, even if it results in criminal prosecution or other means of personal destruction for resisters.  They insist on ideological purity—we must goosestep to their liking—from every person and institution, whether living or long-dead or imaginary.  They’re hellbent on installing a heavily surveilled totalitarian regime of miserable sameness, which includes among its pernicious tenets either no gender or a million ones…but never just two.  Heaven help you if you insist there are only two.  Their unforgiving ideology is a twisted mess—just as their visages are warped into open hatefulness at the slightest heresy. 

I spit on their claim of tolerance.  These are not nice people—but neither am I.  The difference between us is that I value freedom of speech and expression—and so should you.  I can endure the existence of notions I find vile or disgusting, realizing the existence of these notions unmolested ensures my own freedom of speech.           

Acceptance and respect?  Who you accept, who you respect, is nobody else’s business.  Acceptance and respect are within our hearts and minds, which is a place no government, nor any of our fellows, has a right to go and intervene.  It is only the physical manifestations of our notions that may require societal intervention, either for or against, not that these thoughts exist in the first place.  A fascist believes otherwise, fanatically so.     

Those who push concepts such as acceptance and respect, along with other poisonous concepts such as critical race theory (CRT) and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), are straight-up fascists.  Fascists aren’t satisfied with micromanaging tangible things, such as energy production, diet, or our movements.  Oh no, dear readers, fascists are shameless busybodies who are obsessed with controlling speech and thought.  The control of what is within our hearts and minds is the ultimate victory for them, an opportunity for the smuggest of smugness; but, more importantly, it eliminates any vestiges of threat against their ideology, including anyone to courageously remind them that their ideology is evil and destructive.   

Among the many lies embraced by these fascists are acceptance and respect—by force if necessary.  So, let’s summarize the reality of tolerance, acceptance, and respect, from a perspective of sane reality rather than from the self-satisfied delusion of madmen, madwomen, and madtheys.

Respect

• A reasonable definition for respect comes up in Microsoft Word: “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.”
• This definition is consistent with my long-standing assertion that respect is earned, not decreed by fiat or cringe-worthy wishful thinking. 
• We cannot control another person’s thoughts or feelings, nor should we try; therefore, we cannot force someone to respect another person.  Fascists are obsessed with controlling another person’s thoughts, feelings, and speech—don’t let them!           
• There is no requirement that everyone respect everyone else, nor should there be.  In fact, there are many people who it would be immoral to respect.  I have no respect for a pedophile, tax cheat, or global warming hypocrite.    
• Who you respect or don’t respect is your business, not the government’s or anyone else’s. 
• In the context in which it is often used (e.g., school, workplace), respect is confused with civility and basic manners (i.e., politeness).  Politeness is usually warranted in our direct interactions with others, whether you respect or loathe them: please, thank you, you’re welcome, excuse me, pardon me, may I, etc.  This is even true in situations where hatred or disgust are understandably felt toward someone.  Two sides involved in a bloody war eventually must sit across from each other during peace negotiations.  A judge overseeing the trial of a serial killer doesn’t behave boorishly towards the defendant (except perhaps during the sentencing, if convicted).       
• An employer or school can’t mandate respect among employees or students—nor should it try—but basic civility is necessary for these places to function.  This doesn’t mean a workplace or school must be overseen by a hypersensitive Miss Manners armed with guard dogs, barbed wire, watchtowers, and gallows.  Note to pronoun fascists who are sure to misinterpret the first sentence of this bullet point: Forcing someone to use incorrect pronouns is transfascism; it is not politeness.  It is impolite (and fascist) to compel someone to accept a patent lie as the truth.  Calling a cat a dog, for example, when it’s clearly a cat, is madness.  No less rude is insisting that a trans-identifying male is a woman who must be referred to as such.  The aggressor (rude person) in this interaction is the transfascist.  Bottom line regarding pronouns: the speaker decides the pronouns to use in reference to another person.        
• A lack of respect for someone does not mean he or she should be treated unfairly, cheated, or deprived of basic human rights and responsibilities.  A pedophile is entitled to due process if he commits a crime (yes, hold your nose on this one, but the pedophile given due process ensures your own due process).  I don’t advocate looting a store owned by a BLM supporter, despite how deliciously schadenfreude-y that would be.  Dylan Mulvaney is a gender-appropriating male asshat, but he is entitled to act like a damn fool in order to earn a living, so long as he doesn’t harm anyone else.  He does, though, advocate harm: He wants accurately-gendering him (what he calls misgendering) made illegal and supports the medical poisoning and mutilation of minors.        

Acceptance

• A reasonable definition for acceptance in Microsoft Word: “agreement with or belief in an idea, opinion, or explanation.”
• Acceptance is often mistaken for tolerance—or insisted on in place of tolerance. 
• It is fascism to insist on acceptance and implement consequences for a failure to do so.
• Enforced acceptance is not acceptance.  Acceptance must come of a person’s own volition if it is to be sincere.  Government, school, or employer decrees do not result in genuine acceptance.
• As is true with respect, you might not accept someone, for reasons both petty and profound—and that’s okay—but that doesn’t give you the right to harm the person or deprive him or her of basic human rights and responsibilities.

Tolerance

• A reasonable definition for tolerance in Microsoft Word: “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”
• Tolerance is minding your own business regarding someone you don’t like, assuming that person doesn’t cause any direct demonstrable harm to others.  Note to wussies: Manufactured faux-harm doesn’t count as harm (e.g., “Words are violence!”; “I was misgendered!”; “The campus speaker made me feel unsafe!”; “The company’s logo is racist!”).
• Tolerance is a willingness to afford those you loathe the same rights and responsibilities you want for yourself.
• There is toxic tolerance and genuine tolerance.  Toxic tolerance is the performative embracing of evil for use against one’s political enemies and/or for the narcissistic orgasm of virtue-signaling (“Look at how tolerant I am!”).  Undermining the adult responsibility of enforcing immigration laws because you want to appear enlightened—or for cynical political gain—is toxic tolerance.  So is allowing physical harm to people via gender ideology (e.g., castrating males, removing healthy female breasts).  An example of genuine tolerance is allowing an immigrant who comes here legally to go about his business, regardless of your feelings about his race, where he came from, or him personally—and it’s okay to have those feelings. 
• Begrudging tolerance is always preferrable to performative virtue-signaling.
• It is okay not to like someone or approve of his behavior or lifestyle.  It’s okay not to accept or respect someone.   It’s how you treat the person despite this that matters—this is your level of tolerance toward the person.
• Tolerance is not only the best we can hope for, but is the best we should strive for as a formal public policy.  Going beyond this is fascism.  
• Tolerance is for people or ideas you don’t like, just as freedom of speech isn’t meant for speech you like.

Examples of tolerance

Our daily lives are replete with tolerance.  It’d be anarchy and chaos if they weren’t.  Tolerances of people who irritate, exasperate, anger, or even disgust us.  Tolerance means we allow these people to go about their lives with the same rights, responsibilities, and risks we want for ourselves.  We’ve decided it’s not worth the effort, or that it’s unethical, for us to bring the power of the state or the power of a private entity against them.        

Some religions consider homosexuality a sin.  A person holding this view may want legal statutes against homosexuality, just as he would laws punishing murder or other acts deemed sins by his religion.  Others who disapprove of homosexuality may instead tolerate it, realizing that this is in the best interest of protecting their own right to privacy, and the right to be attracted to whom they want to be attracted to; therefore, they do not want prohibitions against it codified. 

Putting someone in jail is an expensive proposition, and it’s your tax dollars involved—so make it worth the effort and cost.  Ask yourself regarding any behavior you want prohibited (not tolerated): Does the behavior pose a direct demonstrable harm to others?  Do I really want someone put in jail for it?  Do I want my tax dollars spent on dealing with it?  This assessment likely leads to you tolerating a lot of shit you don’t like.        

Tolerance is often a two-way street.  A man wearing a dress is stupid, but I may decide to tolerate his proclivity and let him go about his business.  There are trans-identifying male YouTubers who wear dresses and who I respect. I admire their courage in speaking out against trans-extremism. But a man in the dress doesn’t have the right to force me to agree he is a woman or use inaccurate pronouns in reference to him.  A religion may consider homosexuality a sin.  It’s okay if a homosexual despises a religion that deems his sexuality sinful, but he must tolerate different opinions or beliefs, so long as the holder of these does him no direct demonstrable harm (physical harm to person or property). 

In closing…

Perhaps you don’t like someone because of his or her race, religion, sexuality, political views, caste, socio-economic class, quirkiness, appearance, or other reason.  It’s okay not to like someone, regardless of the reason.  If everyone liked everyone else, that would be big-time creepy and a weird-ass dystopia in which I would not want to live.     

Formal efforts at forced respect and acceptance are not just wasted, but manifestations of fascism—a desire to control what others think and speak.  We have no right to meddle in what is in another person’s heart or mind.  So stay the fuck out of there!

Efforts at acceptance and respect are a fool’s errand.  Fascist fools.  We cannot force someone to accept or respect another person, nor should we try.  Tolerate what you can, but make it genuine tolerance, not toxic tolerance.  Never allow anyone to force you to accept or respect someone or something against your will.

What I think about you or your lifestyle is irrelevant.  I must be allowed to think and speak about it as I wish, as is true for everyone else.  There is no human right to be accepted or respected by others. What matters is how I treat someone, regardless of whether I accept or respect the person.  The only thing that matters.  To go beyond this entails thought and speech control.  It is fascism, no matter how much the fascists conjure up excuses trying to prettify it.

In summary: The key is how I treat you, the rights and responsibilities (and attendant risks) I afford you, despite what I think about you.  It is really that simple.