Have you noticed the increased call for tolerance over the last several years? I have. I am sure some of you out there are already saying to yourself, “Surely he’s not going to attack tolerance, he would never be that presumptuous” To you I have to ask, ” Have you not been paying attention?”
Yes! I am attacking this strange concept of tolerance that has pervaded society, where some demand others be tolerant. The great irony of this is this call of tolerance is launched when someone voices their opinion or a belief that contradicts someone else’s. They level the attack that you are being intolerant if you say that you object to any number of activities or beliefs that are floating around. Whether it is politics, religion, homosexuality, race, or nudism, the call demand is the same, you must adjust your thinking to accept that idea of someone else.
It is here that the trap is laid. If you fall for this little trick you are falling for the fallacy of appeal to the mob. Your silence is being elicited by use of a ploy backed by some threat of social ostracism. But you must realize that your very belief system is at stake. If you think this is hyperbole then read on and learn why it’s not.
In the brainwashing of Prisoners of War the captors learned if they ever wanted to gain cooperation they must first break down the belief system of the prisoner. They very cleverly exploited the fact that people not only like but require consistency. If you can distort or remove this consistency then you can manipulate the person. They knew that if they could get the prisoner to simply agree to a demand even if that demand did not seem to contradict their beliefs it would be used against them and lead to the their eventual capitulation. The process was elegant in a way and follows a process. First attack the person’s identity. Second make them guilty, then the get them to betray themselves. and then wait for them to break.
This call for tolerance is no different. People have been taught to be tolerant. It has been socially conditioned that tolerance is good, although it should be pointed out that this tolerance only applies to socially acceptable ideas or behaviors. So this call for tolerance is generally a gentle attack, usually it is implicit that the person of whom tolerance is being demanded is somehow intolerant. Have you noticed even the word intolerant has a negative connotation in your own mind? Sometimes the demand is prefaced with an explicit attack. Either way the person’s identity is under assault. This is where the consistency part beings to work. If the person views themselves as good (generally a societal construct) then they will not want to be perceived as intolerant. There is the crack that will shred their belief system. To bad they didn’t recognize the lie they were been fooled into accepting.
The next step is to create guilt. Whether this is to tell the Christan that Jesus promoted tolerance (a lie in itself but it doesn’t matter if the guilt is inspired by truth or a lie) or that you shouldn’t judge others, or simply because you don’t have the right to project your beliefs on to others. The how isn’t important it is the effect that matters. A logical and rational mind could stop this in it’s tracks but we will get to this later.
But they aren’t done here, there is another step they require. They need you to agree with them. Ayn Rand warned us when she said, “Evil requires the sanction of the victim.” If the person has fallen into the trap and accepted first that they are intolerant, and have been persuaded to feel guilt for their beliefs, this is where the fatal blow occurs. When they admit that they are guilty. Then their reality can be distorted. Their friends, and anyone like them can be twisted into being just as guilty as them.
Finally they reach the breaking point. You probably are already thinking, “what more can they do to the poor guy?” They have already broken him when they made him guilty. But they have one final trick up their sleeve. They now give the person a way out. They tell them in not so many words that he does not need to be guilty. He can simply change his beliefs and be free.
Ah the simplicity by which people are convinced to give up their rationally held beliefs. But those who are rational should see that this whole line of thinking was irrational from the very beginning.
First a rational person will have to question the very idea that intolerance is wrong or bad. Is being intolerant of criminals wrong? How about liars? How about deviants? How about those who misuse power? You see, intolerance isn’t bad, in fact, it is often the most reasonable reaction. At this first link in the chain the rational mind can give the person a way out by simply failing to fall for the inconsistency that the trap is based on. Without creating the inconsistency the trap will not work.
Now let’s say that the rational person has been fooled, they have allowed society to program them with this idea that intolerance is bad and they have accepted the inconsistency. It’s still not too late. They can still save themselves by using a bit of thought and logic. By simply seeing that there is a problem in their premise that intolerance was bad they could have saved themselves, and now they simply have to refuse to feel guilty for their beliefs. They can decide that their beliefs were based on logic and rational thought and thus there is no reason for guilt.
So you say, what about the Christian that you mentioned above, how can they escape guilt. Again I say check your premise. Even for the Christian they must accept the argument that seeks to convict them. Take the first premise “Jesus was tolerant” didn’t he throw people out of the temple according to the story. Strike one against tolerance. But you say, “what about not judging” here is a tricky one because it takes a bit of study. Not judging has nothing to do with determining if someone is doing a bad thing in the biblical sense. That was laid out in the teachings of the bible, the judgment is determining the consequences for those actions in a spiritual sense. A little bit of knowledge breaks the argument completely. So even a Christian can use rational thought to preserve their belief system as long as they have a firm basis for their understanding.
And even here if the rational person has fallen for the attack, they have accepted the guilt, they can stop the process cold by simply failing to give their consent to feel guilty. Because even if they have convicted themselves by guilt they can choose not to punish themselves. They can simply decide that they may need to check their premises, and until that point where a rational conclusion has been reached there is no need to change their beliefs.
No acceptance of the attack, no break, No guilt, no break, no incrimination, no break. No break, no sinister changing of beliefs by the other party.
So while they are going to attempt to change your beliefs, you never have to allow it because you will recognize their assault and the fallacy of their argument.
You have to Login