Q. Is intolerance of intolerance morally defensible?
A. Didn't we already do this one? Alright, let's approach it from another angle.
Those that claim that intolerance of intolerance is justifiable are more often than not engaging in a motte and bailey process of rhetorical doublethink. As such, they are conflating two very different behaviours, those being:
1. Condemning an objectionably "intolerant" behaviour or action by others.
2. Attacking and demonising an individual or group for what are perceived to be objectionably "intolerant" thoughts.
What should be immediately apparent is that the first of these appears on the surface to be an entirely reasonable response to a perceived injustice, whereas the second is an utterly despicable, shameful act of bullying.
By conflating the two though, the "progressive" thinker gets to behave in accordance with the second, while justifying it with the first, and thus keeping the moral high ground in their own minds.
The human mind is very adept at rationalising—coming up with convenient excuses for why "it's not wrong when I do it." And what the "progressive" thinker fails to take into consideration, is that the individuals they're attacking also get to justify their own "intolerance" in their own minds. They think they're in the right too.
At the end of the day, the practical aspects of the "progressive" thinker's "intolerance of intolerance" is every bit as bad as the intolerance they're supposedly intolerant of.
However bad that is...
Q. Wow, these so called "progressives" really are deplorable human scum aren't they!
A. Careful now!
No comments:
Post a Comment