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:

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

Don't Look Down by Crusie and Mayer

Not really a review, just wanted to say that I enjoyed this book, _Don't Look Down_ by Jennifer Crusie and Bob Mayer. I went to Amazon to get the link and noticed that it's getting trashed in the reviews by people who have been fans of Crusie's romance novels. I can see why they were upset but I hope she continues to collaborate with Mayer because all I can say is "your loss is my gain." I'm also going to be looking for Mayer's books written as Robert Doherty to check them out. _Don't Look Down_ is a silly novel that had me laughing or trying not to let the kids see I was crying... The laughs weren't belly laughs and the tears weren't heart wrenching sobs... It was just fun. And it *was* a romance. With guns. And knives. And Wonder Woman action figures with matching "wonder wear" underwear. And the items the international terrorist was shipping to the Russian mob boss? Pre-colombian jade penises. At least two people get e...
11 comments
Read more

How "Representation" In Fiction Becomes Toxic

  Some things sound so obviously good that they don't need to be examined.  One of those things is the idea of Representation in fiction; movies, television or books.  Entertainment where some people are conspicuously absent would seem to be an obvious problem, right?  A person doesn't have to be "woke" or any sort of feminist to occasionally watch an old television show and realize (for example) that all the scientists and astronauts in an old movie are men. It's as glaring an anachronism these days as watching a show where everyone is chain smoking cigarettes. Entertainment should reflect the diverse nature of real life and society because, in the end, fiction has to be even more real than real life.  If nothing else, it makes that entertainment more interesting to introduce characters with a variety of backgrounds and challenges. And so we're told that diverse fiction is BETTER fiction. The way that this rather obvious truth is often framed, often discussed...
4 comments
Read more