Is it really so hard to understand that some people just have integrity, i.e. they believe that every individual deserves the same right to voice their opinions without having to prostrate themselves before megalomaniacal, ideological puritans?
It seems to escape you that you’re no better a judge than anyone else on what is to be accepted in society. What we allow is a collaborative game. Your approach obviously descends from a height of political bias — I mean, you plainly speak the language. Bigots. But, there’s such a conspicuous lack of clarity in what you’ve put forward. Are we to believe you don’t have the highest contempt for our freedoms when you criticise the very concept with such carelessness, and when you proselytize us with such an air of superiority?
I think you represent the creed of close mindedness, rallied beneath the banner of the un-concept tolerance, which really means the category of things you and your affiliates agree to be acceptable. You tell us what we ought to do, under the false pretense you are more enlightened than us, which you believe because the cult of power surrounding the fear of being called a bigot, the fear of being unfashionable, makes others cede their rationality to you and you like that power. You want it to be without cost. It will not. The dark power of that manipulation will forge the knife that stabs you in the back, even in your self righteousness.
This is the second of two pieces I’ve seen so far making an attempt to undermine the esteem of free speech while carefully assuring the readers they don’t support government intervention in speech. But they will not disavow violence in the name of suppressing “hate”. This is a tactical game. Words of indefinite meaning become the foci of the so called debate. The radical leftist then gauges the response of any opponents, considers any objections and defines the language based on what is most expedient to the progress of their goals. They want to use violence but they have to be sure they can make it seem legit. This involves moving several semantic goal posts, and leading others into endless confusion over nebulous concepts that are merely tools of expediency, for making you, the reader, consent to the parameters of their game.
Don’t fall for the trap. Reject these endless labels and negative terms used to consolidate your guilt and/or your dismissal of your individual power. Use your voice as you please, and when they reveal themselves as enablers of totalitarianism, as I think the above author has sufficiently done, deny them their lifeblood which is your attention.
