Are Leftists Champions of Tolerance?

People of all political backgrounds find that polarization is exhausting and stressful. The Pew Research Center found, “more than one-third of social media users are worn out by the amount of political content they encounter, and more than half describe their online interactions with those they disagree with politically as stressful and frustrating”

I entirely agree. It’s exhausting. I’ve had my fair share of political discussions (a charitable way of phrasing it) that result in a fruitless outcome. You end up asking yourself, why the hell did I participate in this discussion at all? Is all this ideological division affecting the way we interact with each other personally? An interesting survey conducted by Dartmouth suggested that these political divisions have been socially adverse for students. As it turns out, leftists aren’t nearly the champions of tolerance they claim to be. In the survey,

“… undergraduates were asked if learning that another student had political beliefs opposite from their own would affect a range of possible interactions with them. Forty-two percent of respondents said that knowing this would make them less likely to befriend them, while 54 percent said it would make no difference. More than two-thirds of student respondents (70 percent) said they would be less likely to consider dating someone with opposite political beliefs from themselves. About a third (30 percent) said learning someone had opposite political beliefs would make them less likely to trust the person. The influence of personal politics does not permeate academics as much; only 19 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to study with someone with opposing political views, and for “working on class projects with them” it was 18 percent. Overall percentages like these mask sizable partisan differences — Democrats were consistently more likely to indicate conflicting politics negatively affect potential relationships. While 82 percent of respondents who identified Democrats say they would be less likely to date someone with opposing political beliefs, only 47 percent of Independents and 42 percent of Republicans said the same. Similarly, 55 percent of Democratic respondents said opposite political views would make them less likely to befriend another student, compared to 21 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.”

Republicans were roughly twice as tolerant when it came to dating and befriending individuals of opposing political viewpoints. That’s a revealing takeaway. On a more anecdotal level, Will Witt of PragerU interviewed Democrats about their willingness to befriend Republicans followed by interviewing Republicans about their willingness to befriend Democrats. Sadly, these interviews reinforced the findings of the survey conducted at Dartmouth. Political intolerance is virtually one-sided and is largely rooted in leftist ideology.

When conservative commentators, such as Ben Shapiro, have to enter universities with a safety team so that he may safely deliver his lecture, leftists should begin to question the message they’re promoting. If they want to appear tolerant, they shouldn’t affirm the tactics of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, some segments of the mainstream media (MSM), LGBT activists, etc… when they weaponize their resources to ruin the lives of those that disagree with them.

I could go on ad infinitum with examples of how conservatives have been treated uncharitably in our modern culture by leftist activists. Voicing conservative opinions are unpopular, even among conservatives sometimes, because they grind against the accepted cultural norm. Nobody wants to publicly affiliate themselves with conservative thought for fear of blowback from friends and family. That is how we know tolerance is not a trademark of the left. They’re championing conformity, not tolerance.

Stupid People Are a Protected Class

The title of the article may seem a little “clickbaity” but I’m not performing an act of misdirection to deceive you into reading an article totally unrelated to the title. I promise. Stupid people have become a protected class. It is discourteous to tell someone they’re stupid and I wouldn’t encourage someone to call someone stupid nor would I personally call someone stupid. What I mean is that people saying and doing stupid things are more tolerated now than ever.

Modern young Americans happily and unquestioningly accept stupid theories as reality. For instance, the intersectionality nonsense has practically engulfed college campuses across America, confusing the hell out of most reasonable people. Everyone is racing to be the most offended possible at any given time by attempting to claim victimhood status in as many “oppressed” groups they can claim membership to. These same people jump at the opportunity to aggressively protest conservative Ben Shapiro by calling him a racist, homophobic, Nazi. They fail to see the irony behind protesting a small-framed Jewish conservative who lectures about the importance of free speech, individual liberty, civil rights, and limited government. They obviously aren’t historically informed enough to understand what Hitler would have done to Ben Shapiro if he had been given the opportunity. In preparation for a typical Ben Shapiro lecture, leftist student organizations establish “safe spaces” to protect students from the exposure to spooky new conservative ideas. Without this safe space bubble, they’d obviously feel “triggered” and they’d be forced to deal with a different point of view. I haven’t even begun to speak of all the security Ben Shapiro is required to have as protection against those triggered into violence. Otherwise known as Antifa.

Many celebrities have taken on their own personal tale of playing themselves as political activists, but unfortunately they don’t have smart people writing their scripts and they come off sounding like idiots. Unlike the students that find themselves coloring in a corner of a warm safe space, celebrities find themselves protected by the media who support every stupid syllable that comes out of their overpaid mouthes. Leftist “journalists” seem to be willing to overlook the innumerable political follies the leftist celebrity culture makes in an attempt to make their celebrity friends sound sophisticated. They’re unwisely perceived as our betters by those who enjoy their theatrical talents. While Tom Hanks, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Julianne Moore may be excellent performers, they’re nothing more than an extension of the DNC that use their cultural clout to influence citizens to vote blue. For that, celebrities will always have the favor and protection of the DNC.

Stupidity has become so common that it’s challenging to point it out any longer. Everyday there is a headline that sounds so moronic that you tend to shrug your shoulders and disregard it as another one of those realities that you have no control over. To a large degree, that’s correct. I can’t do anything about the imbecile that said “Baby, It’s Cold Outside!” is about “rape culture” or the moron that dug up Kevin Hart’s jokes from a decade ago to make his life difficult today. These people are obviously miserable souls in need of a good kick in the ass, but their idiotic comments only gained traction because people gave them the attention they were seeking. Nobody truly cares what Kevin Hart said a decade ago and nobody cares about what SJW believes about “Baby, It’s Cold Outside!” The only people that mildly care are likeminded leftists that have weaponized these pieces of information to advance a destructive agenda.

In the generations before mine, nobody would have thought to discuss such menial topics. I’d be discussing problems that were actually problems. These stupid issues I noted above are contrived by SJW types that still live in their parent’s basement because they have no real problems of their own. They’re permanently stuck with a victimhood leftist mentality because their college professors convinced them that America is an evil imperialist country that strategized every decision prior to and after its founding with malicious intent. These are the young adults chanting, “Feel the Bern”, demanding free healthcare, education, housing, and jobs are everyone with no rational explanation about how to pay for it. We’re seeing the first of this generation become elected into congress through Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, I’m convinced, couldn’t pass a United States citizenship test.

By not holding ourselves to a higher standard, we settle for stupid. Settling for stupid gets you representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Let’s allow ourselves the freedom to call stupid out when we see it rather than tolerate it like a drunk uncle at Christmas.

The Leftist’s Deceptive Language

Words should have real meaning. As controversial as it may be to a leftist, it is a reality that shouldn’t be denied. Altering broadly accepted definitions of basic words for political purposes is a weapon the left has successfully wielded against their opponents with great success. The real beneficiaries of these alterations are few and the consequences have devolved a culture into a state that is accepting of behaviors considered barbaric and backward by any standard definition. I’ll examine three examples to demonstrate what I mean.

The biggest and most vital threat to our society is the trash heap the pro-abortion movement has left the English language in. A human is now a ‘clump of cells.’ The killing of an unborn child is now a ‘right.’ They embrace the term ‘reproductive rights’ rather than ‘abortion’ because the latter sounds too ‘murdery.’ They cloak their language to soften the emotional blow and hide their moral misdoings. After all, they call it ‘pro-choice’ because they want to convince you that this choice is morally equivalent to choosing whether to purchase chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Meaning, they are trying to deceive you into thinking there is no moral weight behind killing a child by veiling their language with softened words and launching emotionally driven campaigns that attempt to convince you that the unborn aren’t humans worthy of protection.

Transgenderism is another delusion-riddled campaign aimed at deceiving society through the means of changing language. Their contention is that gender and sex aren’t biologically linked to any meaningful degree. They contend that you can determine your own gender based on your feelings while sex is a biological attribute. Factually speaking, gender is not malleable and is inextricably connect with your sex. Your DNA is established at conception, which determines the sex of the child. Each sex has physically and emotionally distinctive attributes that make them unique. This has always been the case for thousands of years since the beginning of human civilization, and no biological or psychological change has influenced a marked change in the makeup to our species to make our gender evolve in a manner the LGBT community would have you believe. While there is no doubting the fact that a very small number of individuals suffer with gender identity struggles, enabling their delusion isn’t wise, loving, or helpful. If you broadly enable delusion enough, society will begin to accept delusional behavior as a norm. That’s what we’re seeing within this movement where well-intentioned people are being berated for calling someone the wrong pronoun. LGBT advocates find themselves in the position of calling conservatives, “homophobes”, “transphobes”, and the like for not agreeing with their behavior. This has silenced particular businesses and prominent cultural icons and bullied them into unneeded disingenuous apologies for the sake of appearance. These social justice warrior LGBT types use deceptive language to lure in young naïve college students into artificial sympathy but many eventually work their way into a role as an apologist for their cause by participating in their same shameful tactics.

A case can be made for the abolishment of state run marriages entirely because some feel that the government has no place being involved in a personal relationship between two consenting adults. However, the same-sex marriage crowd pursued the “right” to marry harder than any heterosexual couple could ever imagine. Since it was determined that states must allow same-sex couples to marry in 2015 in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision, we are now left with a dramatically different definition of marriage. Marriage was defined as the covenant between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation within the confines of a long-term monogamous relationship. Everyone within the family is the beneficiary of this union. The male is domesticated by settling down with a long-term monogamous female partner. Both partners are bound together in life by having a child together. Both mother and father can bring up the child in a complementarian fashion because mothers and fathers are intrinsically unique in the value they bring to the parenting process. These factors are not present in any other definition of marriage. Unfortunately, since the Obergefell v. Hodges was decided, the LGBT movement has since felt empowered enough to call everyone a homophobe who doesn’t affirm their lifestyle.

These are three examples, of many, that illustrate why precise language matters. Language is attached to concrete realities. Obviously, language can be altered. The consequences of changing semantics could be societally catastrophic if done so in a frivolous and unwise manner. In this case, those doing the word manipulations care not for the confusion their deception causes or the evil that results. It’s driven to heighten the success of their intended political goal. We must fight for using our language responsibly and hold society accountable for the meanings of the words they are using.