The perennial nature of tolerance

The extreme leftⁱ wastes no opportunity to try and push the narrative that it is tolerant ; whereas non-it, whatever it may be, is thereby intolerant.

Other than being a rather flimsy if transparent attempt at window-pushingⁱⁱ, this is of course, false. Everyone is tolerant. The only matter is, the idiots (aka, left) are tolerant with some things while sane people are tolerant with some other things.

To wit : idiots are tolerant to the weak ; and intolerant of the powerful. Sane people are exactly opposite : they are tolerant of the powerful ; and intolerant of the weak. Everyone's tolerant, and I dare say to the same measure, it's just the objects of tolerance and intolerance that change.

Consider the "code of conduct", as fine an example of lefty imbecilism as ever concocted. Verbiage in the vein of

Treat the situation as the problem, accept the users for who they are and try to figure out how best to help resolve the difficulty.

is bound to be included (and this is a mild version, most instances the ethnologist will end up collecting will include all sorts of anti-meritocratic hatespeech) ; and will be ever found doubled by insistent warnings that curators/moderators/administrators/white men/people in power are to be held to more, not to less scrutiny. This then is the whole socialist picture : tolerance, for the weak, intolerance, for the powerful.

The converse, which is to say, tolerance for the powerful and intolerance for the weak is also amply documented in functional social structures, I won't bore with lengthy recitals.

What it all boils down to is that tolerance is an invariant. There isn't a case with more, or with less tolerance. The only part that varies is where the tolerance available gets applied. Yes, the retarded left would very much like to get you to apply it the way they want you to and then forget it even exists at all, much like they generally like to steal your shit and then steal your having been stolen from also -- career criminals have learned a lot about how to cover their ass in the course of their unmentionable careers. If you buy into that sort of nonsense you're just advertising you're stupid, and that's about all for you.

The truly amusing part, however, is that the stupidity of the left is not mere epithet, hurled by a political opponent. Consider : if you tolerate the powerful and do not tolerate the weak, this creates both an incentive among the weak to stop being weak, and an incentive among the powerful to support you. If conversely you tolerate the weak and do not tolerate the powerful, this creates both an incentive among the powerful to stop being powerful, and among the weak to support you. Who do you expect is going to win a confrontation between the camp with more loyal, more powerful followers and the camp with less loyal, fewer powerful followers ?

Oh, don't tell me, let me guess -- the left is pacifist, and all about "the electorate" and "our democracy", which is to say constituencies as large as possible so the stupid and the weak may drown out the smart and the powerful ; an enchanted lala land where power dun matter and conflict is not possible.ⁱⁱⁱ

The only problem with this set-up is how rapidly it went away. Yes such nonsensical pretense could be maintained at immense cost and for a short interval between the end of industrialisation and the rise of computing. The odds of that mindbogling outlier to ever repeat are about the same as the odds of the Earth capturing another Moon. Plan accordingly.

1. Most everyone is left, which includes almost everyone who identifies as "right on some issues" etcetera. Here's some simple heuristics : If you speak English as your only language you are absoloutely left, without possibility of escape. If you're female and have never killed (mammals!) with your own hands (no, abortion doesn't count ; getting the boys to beat each other bloody in highschool also doesn't count, for the same reason) you are absolutely left, irrespective what you may [like to pretend you] think. If you are a "minority" in the modern sense of a "protected class" you are left, irrespective of what you like to publicly pretend. If you've never been called a "sociopath" by lefties pretending to be right you're absolutely left. On it goes, the list is long, as far as the life of the average castratto (they prefer to be called "middle class" ; they also prefer to think castration is ok if it's done for the sake of music and therefore civilisation) is concerned there's nothing but the left all around him.

   Socialism (which is what being left is), always and everywhere the perennial doctrine of the stupid, is repugnant in and of itself, but by the time it ends up logically inconsistent as well as practically intolerable you know you're no longer dealing with the plain, simple and ubiquitous left but with the vocally amusing extreme left.

   That's it : the difference between the quiet dullards and the offensive idiots is how loud they get and how self defeating their proferations are. Left vs extreme left, a story of the dullard and the rabid. [↩]

2. Perhaps best illustrated by the all-time champions of idiocy, the retarded subhuman scum inhabiting Argentina. [↩]
3. But most of all, an enchanted lala land where all interactions occur on the terms of the object of the interaction rather than on the terms of the agent of the interaction. A hallucinated world where the axe doesn't cut down the tree because it's an axe, but because the tree permits it. A batshit insane alt-reality wherein krill has a say in when it's fished and by whom.

   If the world worked this way, if agency were somehow denied altogether they imagine their bubble could forever survive unpunctured, and hence all their bizarre preoccupations with imaginary rapes. [↩]