Skip to main content

Goals


 

Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.  

ADDENDUM:

When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos.

Intolerance isn't wrong.

Racism isn't wrong.

"Punching" isn't wrong.

Political violence isn't wrong.

Hate isn't wrong.

Not even fascism is wrong.

The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things.

Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral necessity; for them.
Those who promote Equity or Anti-racism believe that racism is a moral necessity; for them.
Those who attack others, or "punch", believe that "punching" is a moral necessity; for them.
Those who promote political violence believe it is a moral necessity; for them.
Those who excuse their hate believe that their hate is a moral necessity; for them.
Those who use fascist, jack-booted tactics, attack people at their homes, believe that their fascism is a moral necessity; for them.

Because they are GOOD, and you are BAD.

And all that Popper's Paradox means is that the most intolerant side wins, so be intolerant as hard and as loudly as you can.




Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some times some people.

 
Post a Comment
Read more

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...
Post a Comment
Read more