What if the ‘intolerant’ people are tolerating *you* intolerating them?

As someone who remembers when PC started and seemed it would be a good thing, I can agree with a lot of that.

18 years old, 1990, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA. uber liberal arts college. Home of safe spaces, multiculturalism. I learned all of that stuff 26 years ago.

But here’s something I noticed that would get me to lose friends. I noticed when some people would preach tolerance, it was for anybody except this mysterious ‘intolerant’ bunch. So here’s what smart-ass me would say back to them:

“How can you say you’re tolerant if you’re not tolerating intolerant people?

What if the ‘intolerant’ people are tolerating *you* intolerating them?

Maybe THEY’RE the tolerant ones and you are the intolerant ones.”

So yeah, even 26 years ago when PC started off, it was already starting to derail.

But I understand what tolerance is. What PC was supposed to be about is for everybody. Civility, etiquette. Respect. The worst turn was around the late 90s when folks started mandating it as required on university campuses. That’s when PC lost its way and so began the whole SJW thing. Shame really: PC came from the military and was adopted by Universities in he late 80s/early 90s. But it lost its way long ago by excluding certain classes that never should be have been excluded.


PC started off in the US military and was quickly adopted by government. Entered University campusees in 1988 – I don’t remember if it was Mt Holyoke or Smith college in Amherst MA but it was one of the 5 college consortium. It was a two page ‘etiquette’ pamphlet they sent out. I entered in 1990 and got that pamphlet. It was a new thing and everybody was excitedly talking about it. I understand its intent – a lot of us did – and I was all for it. But some people took it as weapons and I hoped they didn’t ruin it. They did.


That’s been the strange turn of events Donovan. PC was actually a success. Too much so. Because it became ‘left vs right’ instead of overall tolerance, once people from the right got the same university education in post modern liberal sensibilities, they were able to use it and flip it around. Now the right knows how to talk the talk. That’s why it’s a shame the militarized form won over the overall etiquette form of PC. It was bound to happen.


PC was never supposed to legislate anything though. That’s the thing. It was a set of guidelines. _somewhere_ along the line, some on the left got a taste of power with it and ruined it by making it law in some places. Never should’ve happened that way, but it did.


Once it stops being a free choice, it was doomed.
Oberlin? Really? Wow, I mean it makes sense as they were of the same uber liberal arts bend. I always heard it traced to 1988 from the girls of Smith college or maybe Mt Holyoke. I guess they got to write the history of the university spread.Oh I know it has a deeper history – it was from the 60s right?
 always heard it was from the 60s from some think tank, and it started being adopted by us military and politicians. Man, I should brush up on my history of it. So few people even know it *has* a history I’ve been running with what I knew for decades now.
 One of the big mistakes that I learned growing up was this weird notion that not mentioning race was equivalent to not being racist.One of the things I learned from the newer left that is correct is white privilege or if nothing else: That the implied [white] matters. Once you insert the implied [white] into discussions of race, suddenly the implied separation is clear. So, they’re not wrong.Just last month on my college’s alum page, an influx of pro-Trump folks of my generation (I’m 44) popped on and the PoC decided to create a separate PoC Hampshire College page.Of course the “but race doesn’t matter” alum of my generation were offended and going cluelessly, “But can’t we all just get along?” and yeah, I used to be one of those types.But by this point, I already knew there’s a reason for those safe spaces and if someone needs it, they should create it and be allowed to it. In fact, the safe spaces concept fits well into the whole separation scheme you’re talking about. The main difference is whether it’s by CHOICE or mandated by law.

Oh you’re going all the way back to there? Heck, we can stretch it back to the 1920s and Edward Bernays’ turning propaganda into “public relations” and upending corporate marketing strategies.

I’d rather stick to “calling people by what they prefer”. I mean if you want to way back to the roots, you gotta shoot through humanism, down through the 1400s and go back to Christ’s love teaching, likely through that into Eastern religions a few more hundred years.

Gotta have _some_ constraints on historical inquiry.


Tough love is a failure. Proven time and time again. You know who adopted a tough lough strategy that will fail if they keep it up? School teachers in the USA.

It got mixed into Common Core somehow. “Grit” – this notion of “toughening up” students by removing notions of innate intelligence and trying to replace it with “failure” as a way of ‘toughening kids up’. It’s bound to fail. I’ve seen soldiers come back from boot camp cracked by the training. This “push hard to toughen ppl up” can be a dangerous enough game for adults, but when it’s kids, it’s just a recipe for continuation of brutishness. I mean brutishness will always be with us, but damn, encouraging it isn’t the anwer.


If you tell me you’re Jesus, I may go along with you or I may have a laugh. If I see you’re serious and I’m not in a position of responsibility over you, then you’re Jesus as far as I’m concerned.

But if I’m in a position of responsibility over you, I’d see if it affects you and your social relationships that you desire in a negative way.

If it doesn’t, believe what you will. If it does, I’ll encourage you to get help.


You know what your way of thinking will lead back to? Fagging traditions. Senpai/Kohai. Pledges in Universities and Hazing practices. If that’s the kind of thing you like, well, ok then. But I don’t.


HR depts yeah – that’s right. It was tied into 2nd wave of Affirmative action when they realized that just putting quotas in was doomed to fail, so they adopted a “tip toe” approach.


Thing is goes back back to my main point of it all: Something can be a good idea but be ruined upon becoming legislated.

Look at the black panthers. They want to take control of their neighborhoods and get the mostly white police out and do community policing.

You know what? I’m all for it. Give it a shot. Negotiate a time frame of letting them turn these communities into intentional communities. Give them 5 yrs, 10 years, have status reports, work together with the larger community who will keep things ‘hands off’.

But it’s if it’s their choice. PC is the same way. If it’s a choice, it’s a good thing. If it’s required by law, well, in _certain positions_ it should be. Positions of responsibility require higher standards. Cops require higher standards. Teachers. Professors. Judges. Business leaders. etc.

But when it comes to everyday people ,they should have more freedoms.


I have a feeling our positions are *probably* not that far off from each other in the end but far enough to warrant discussing the nuances.



They’re smarter now. Us white folk took their 2nd amendment gun rights away from them. We can still do armed protests but they can’t. So, they do the next best thing.


Well, it’s the rhetoric. It starts to all sound alike. Same goes from the right –> left. No question I’m on the left but I’ve had that broad brush painted on me plenty of times and it takes lots of words to get ppl to understand where I stand better.


I see a Physicist who wrote a spoof article that got published by a Sociology journal to embarrass them, and then a few months later was refused publication by that same journal (was he writing another spoof) that then got published by a literature review journal (in modified form).

I don’t believe Sokal. If he’s talking about Physics, sure. But his crossovers into humanities seem to be that of spoofing them not giving serious critique.


His dishonest foray into critiquing another field renders further critiques in that field invalid imo. “Look I’ve made fun of you. Now take me seriously”. Nope.



Omen? Look, there’s as much BS in scientific journals as there is in humanities journals as there is in Philosophy journals. Publish or perish.

I could write postmodern in my sleep. I never finished college (just a year and a half – ran out of $$$ – thanks Reaganomics) and write it with accuracy and clarity.

Other people can spew out technically scientifically valid articles (see http://arxiv.org for a whole LOT of them) utilizing its methodologies and outputting shit.

Favorite from last year was one proving your cat doesn’t love you. Please. [it was written by a dept in a british university who does puppy training on the weekends for cash. Bunch of mararky – the whole study).

As far as alt right goes, they were inevitable.

In 1990, there were a few real conservatives left. But the Tv evangalists and ‘family values’ movements were growing. By ’93-ish you had Rush Limbaugh who ushured in a full wave of pseudo-conservatism.

Starting around ’02 the beginnings of the alt right were forming. These kids had gone to universities and learned the talk of post modern critique and started to use that against the growing militarized left.

By the early 10s, the alt right was fluent completely and could go toe-to-toe with any SJW in feminist critique, substituting men for women, and the oppression of the white male for the oppression of the [take your pick].

So by 2016, a Trump victory was simple. Tables flipped. Honestly? I’m fine with that.

But conservatism is dead. Three waves of post-conservatism and what we have left is social justice for country white men. Michael Moore with an edge. That’s fine but conservatism is gone.


Here’s a fantastic article written by an old-school Conservative, one of the last of his kind, back in 2004, about the rise of Pseudo-Conservatism and the death of Conservatism.

A friend of mine, who is liberal himself, was friends with him and has doggedly saved this article through the years.

It’s worth reading: It’s not from a liberal POV. It’s from a traditional conservative. In read this from a historical lens (knowing what you know now), you’ll recognize the beginnings of the alt right in it, even back in 2004.



Classical Liberalism may have been in its death throes in the 1960s but the process repeated itself in the 90s and beyond for Conservatives. This headline in the article says it all just as true today as it was in 2004, 12 years ago:

“From Friedrich von Hayek to Ann Coulter”


Both of our sides has a lot to be sorry about. I know the flaws on my side of the political fence.


I don’t think ppl are as worried about him as they are the people he allowed to support him.

He promised or implied to promise the repeal of the marriage act. This is a big deal to a lot of people on both sides.

Did he mean it or was it just political campaign fodder?

I suspect political campaign fodder.

But now, he’s got a republican majority congress who will be more than happy to hold him to his promise there.

The 2000 Trump was in a different American than 2016 and Trump himself may have changed along with it. We just don’t know. Going only by what he’s said and by what a lot of his followers have said, a lot of people have good reason to be fearful right now. I’m not, but I don’t have to be, do I?


They don’t know that. Putting a rainbow coalition in his cabinet could just as easily be a sales pamphlet for his administration. “See? I got one of everybody here. Stop complaining!”.




Point is, his words for non-white, non straight people, non-men are generally mostly convincing to white men and some of the women who adore them.

When he said, “Black people, vote for me, What have you got to lose?”, neither black people nor anybody else bought it. Only his core did.

The law and order rhetoric is unlikely to have changed under Clinton and it certainly won’t change under Trump. They’ve all been law-and-order people, from Reagan, to Bush, to Clinton, to Bush to Obama and to Clinton or Trump.

Black ppl got a good reason to be protesting these days. I can’t blame ‘em.


She’s a politician like Trump. Say what’s necessary.

You know what keeps politicians like Trump and Clinton honest? People holding them do it. I counted on Sanders to hold Clinton to her promises about TPP. He would have. He managed to get the DNC to sign 80% of his proposals and he was intending on holding them all to it, in exchange for his backing.

It was a good plan. But now, what do we have? A guy’s word. A guy without many people holding him to his promises. Good luck on that. You’ll need it.


It’s not gonna get tossed out Todd. People complain about the electoral college every four years. Too many ppl invested in it functioning properly for that to happen.

Besides, it’ll give the voting power to the cities leading to a possible tyranny of the cities over the countryside. Considering population sparsity in large swaths of the USA, it’s still a logical, if bizarre solution for fairness of vote.

Even though who I voted for lost, and I really don’t care if #NotMyPresident succeeds as life doesn’t change for me much either way, I also don’t have a problem with them trying. Even if the electoral college is abandoned, still won’t affect me much.

But it allowed a Trump victory. Was that the right answer? No idea.



Nope. I don’t know what the solution is tbh. Maybe it’s time to remove it. I dunno. I just can’t see it happening – giving direct power to the people? Granted, the political process used to go through a LOT MORE channels 100+ years ago and they’ve been simplifying them ever since. So maybe it could go away.



We get Biff with the Sports Almanac and as a white male, I’ll be able to deal with it. Feel bad for anybody else tbh.



It seems fair to me. Still, I can see the point of electoral college. Ppl who live in sparsely populated areas would get less representation for their votes so the game would always be stacked against them.



You gonna be this SJW-humorless the whole four years? Man up. You’ve won your protest. Enjoy it.




Considering he’s a studier and product of 80s “Alpha male” business pseudo-psychology, I suspect he applies all of the NLP Nightingdale/conant type moves. I recognized all of them from reading those books in the 80s and early 90s. I think he believes they’re effective. So what they’re reading is probably correct enough, if they’re using the same materials he practiced with. All stereotyped “power moves”.



Eh. I passed around the UNICEF box when I was a kid and put some pennies in myself. Ideals of UN I actually believe in but their practices are often less than desirable, especially if they’ve stayed in an area for too many years. Ppl greed usually wins if nobody’s watching.





Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three × 6 =

Leave a Reply