Obsession with Tolerance - An Attack on Multiculturalism

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Why are people here in the forums, and generally, so obsessed with the display of tolerance towards minority and non-mainstream groups?

I personally, and sincerely, ridicule the attempts of certain groups to force political correctness, egalitarian ideals and tolerance over our own lifestyles and minds. Striving to avoid discrimination, they only become the other side of the coin of despotism and repression. I cannot even think (oh God forbid!) about not liking Christians or other religious groups from coming to my house, disturbing me with doctrination or deceiving the masses in their contempt for money and power disguised under benevolent metaphysical intentions. No! I cannot possibly hate anyone under the label of Religious group, Moslems, Christians and so on, merely because then I will be a "hater", and probably have some kind of fascistic leanings, at least in the views of men and women, who, let's confess, base their own idealism on a clique of socialistic, leftist and utopian preachers and some remote knowledge of history. Apparently their conceptions founded on historical knowledge must tell us that the actions of men hundreds of years ago should dictate our experience forever, and that includes the bad labelling of not being all fond of some religious experiences that, let us admit, in our intimate experience are plainly childish, primitive and even idiotic, ergo despicable.

Now, I use Religion merely as a rhetorical example. It could be sexual orientation, moral leanings, private tastes, anything.

I have continuously seen, throughout my forum experience, users being shunned upon with the same old vitriol offenses like "bigot", "hater" and on to "fascist", then finally "neo-nazis" (which is wittingly called Reductio ad Hitlerum); for sure TWC is not the only place I will find them, so much that there is a particular law made in c.1990, the high times of the Usenet, for the inevitable degradation of meaningful discussion into a mud fight with heavy use of "fascist, nazi" & other associations with the Third Reich, Benito Mussolini or Mein Kampf jingoistic, racist and nationalist ideology.

Now, I know that since 1945 humanity's views have taken a shift. The World War was a traumatic experience, and I am sure many here, like me, had family members who fought hard to survive in the brutal conditions back then. But these times are now past, most witnesses to the calamity are dead, and we must go forward. Nobody is a "Fascist" today, if we take the fact that Neo-Nazism is comparable in popularity to Monarchism and assorted ideologies which will never rule again. Should we hold an obsession against Kings, Regal Supremacy and the likes today merely because a couple of centuries ago Kings used their power to execute people? No! In fact, it is even out of fashion today. "Tyrant" was the most popular label yesterday, but today, it is "Neo-Nazi".

Society will always have its dogmas, of course. If in Roman times it was wrong to make wars without the proper amount of liver reading, today it is no different, only that today's dogmas lay in multiculturalism and no less than complete acceptance of every idiotic way of life and philosophy you can think of. Now I ask you a vital question! Every man has principles of his own. Everyone has tastes, and views that differ from each other; every man has a concept of right or wrong. Were I to accept everything as right, wouldn't I contradict my own self and the basis of my own existance as a human being, that is, my principles, my purposes and my views? Yes!

In fact, what is so Orwellian in it is that Multicultural society puts foward the idea of thoughtcrime. I, and everyone else, are to be indoctrinated into the despotism of tolerance; that is, the complete acceptance of diversity as natural and perfect, even when the historical examples like the Balkans, show us the opposite. It is now even a "crime" to think differently! Oh no, I simply can't even think on despising certain Pagan rituals for their inate childishness, their noise and their primitve beliefs. Or God Forbid! I cannot even despise Moslems and Jews for their kosher food and rigid beliefs. No, no, if I do so I will certainly be the catalyst of the Second Holocaust.

Reality, in case of the Balkans, is often difficult to grasp. Easy it is to do like the multicultural crowd and shield ourselves from Reality, oh Reality, and force ourselves to believe it will all go according to our wishes instead of rebellious, selfish and naked reality. Reality, if it were a Goddess, would be the most unpleasant sight; forget about Medusa, Mythological monsters, old women, Satan. It is Reality alone that takes the biggest share of our despise and even sincere hate. Poor Reality, if it could only conform to our beliefs!

Now, to conclude this and avoid writing a whole book of speeches, I will list the example of Chaigidel. I know that Chaigidel is a Theist and has, according to my view, despicable, unbacked and even outright childish belief in God, but as much as hate him for that, I love him for his amazing sincerity. He hates Atheists, and he makes no secret of it; well Chaig, I might hate what you think, but I will respect your right to say it loudly any time. Oh, and no "Neo-Nazism", despite my disrespect for this rule certain times; as you might know, you can't avoid sharing the vices of your own timeframe!

[Blau&Gruen]

This forum is great because it brings different people together and does not question their selfness including that of Scipio Barbatus.

[Serious Spamurai]

Hater.

[Green]

Your post shows up here. Obviously it's being tolerated. Toleration doesn't mean immunity. I expect many posters to savage your ideas, but at the end of the day, they're not going to beat down your door and make you think like they do.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Your post shows up here. Obviously it's being tolerated. Toleration doesn't mean immunity. I expect many posters to savage your ideas, but at the end of the day, they're not going to beat down your door and make you think like they do.

I know it, Green. The point is to show that Multiculturalism and the obsession with tolerance we live today in our ethos and mores is not only flawed, but lacks viability. Consider it more of a philosophical attack, but I have many ones getting hypocritically criticized for their views on the issue.

In fact, the level of tolerance required by such diversity philosophies is outright impossible. It is no secret that even those who defend it have their sets of prejudices that put them in the same boat with all others.

[MaximiIian]

The point is to show that Multiculturalism and the obsession with tolerance we live today in our ethos and mores is not only flawed, but lacks viability

You're mistakenly using PC and tolerance as synonyms. Tolerance and multiculturalism merely acknowledges that there are differences between people and cultural groups, and that the most civil and humane way to go about things is to be tolerant to them and to not violate their liberty, so long as its victimless and people don't get severely hurt. It doesn't say that you have to like what other people think or do; only that you should tolerate it. It's a utilitarian outlook on the increasingly mixing and globalizing social climate.

PC, on the other hand, takes this to the extreme and says that you have to like it as well as tolerate it. It takes multicultural society and shifts the necessary toleration far out of reasonable proportion. Which is not utilitarian, but hyperbolically syncretic.

[Astaroth]

Very good post, Scipio +rep

I too am completely fed up with this stuff. If you ridicule religion, culture etc or anything just a tiny bit for the sake of humour you are instantly a Nazi.

If you dare to say that those immigrants who come to your country are generally poor, less educated people (else they would usually not come lol) and as a result are responsible for quite an amount of crimes etc - you are downright fascist.

[motiv-8]

When confronted between the supposed 'unviability' of multiculturalism, to which the OP makes a very limited effort against, and the existence of 'hatred' or any of its irrational brethren typically associated with discrimination of any sort, I will choose multiculturalism every time.

[Dayman]

Tolerance and multiculturalism is an attempt, the way I see it, to defend people's rights to think what they want. But they get it wrong, it's okay to disagree with someone else's beliefs. The right to believe what you wish is yours, but so is my right to disagree and challenge it.

[LSJ]

Multiculturalism is a beneficial thing for society when you observe the alternatives. But it simply entails allowing others to practice their religion, eat their foods, play their music, without you enforcing your own beliefs upon them.

It does not entail forced acceptance of the cultures, or integration of the foreign cultures into mainstream society. Its tolerance for their beliefs, and allowing them freedom, but not acceptance. This is what many people appear to get incorrect - they believe anything said against other cultures is bigoted and wrong. This is when they call you a Nazi, anti-semite, bigoted-, etctera ad infinitum.

Well, maybe I dislike people who force their daughters to cover their faces for some religious interpretation, maybe I find men wearing silly little hats with awful hairstyles with curly pieces dangling down in front to be hilarious.

Is there anything wrong with being in opposition to someone's culture? Nein!
Does voicing opinions in opposition to the cultures violate multiculturalism? Nein!

I use German to encourage you to call me a Nazi if I ever make comments regarding Judaism.

The opposition is acceptable, as it is inevitable and fighting against it is to fight against human rights. What is wrong is taunting and enforcing your beliefs on the others, which is in violation of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism should be part of society, because we can't force everyone to live solely among their own ideological brethren. That solves nothing, as many examples have shown us from human history.

Not that multiculturalism is in any way the antidote to our hatred; it is simply a better choice than the alternatives. But by multiculturalism, I mean it in its definition, not by the description of an impossible haven of forced acceptance as some believe.

[Ummon]

An excess of tolerance is just as wrong as the lack of it.

Multiculturalism is a beneficial thing for society when you observe the alternatives. But it simply entails allowing others to practice their religion, eat their foods, play their music, without you enforcing your own beliefs upon them.

It does not entail forced acceptance of the cultures, or integration of the foreign cultures into mainstream society. Its tolerance for their beliefs, and allowing them freedom, but not acceptance. This is what many people appear to get incorrect - they believe anything said against other cultures is bigoted and wrong. This is when they call you a Nazi, anti-semite, bigoted-, etctera ad infinitum.

Well, maybe I dislike people who force their daughters to cover their faces for some religious interpretation, maybe I find men wearing silly little hats with awful hairstyles with curly pieces dangling down in front to be hilarious.

Is there anything wrong with being in opposition to someone's culture? Nein!
Does voicing opinions in opposition to the cultures violate multiculturalism? Nein!

I use German to encourage you to call me a Nazi if I ever make comments regarding Judaism.

The opposition is acceptable, as it is inevitable and fighting against it is to fight against human rights. What is wrong is taunting and enforcing your beliefs on the others, which is in violation of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism should be part of society, because we can't force everyone to live solely among their own ideological brethren. That solves nothing, as many examples have shown us from human history.

Not that multiculturalism is in any way the antidote to our hatred; it is simply a better choice than the alternatives. But by multiculturalism, I mean it in its definition, not by the description of an impossible haven of forced acceptance as some believe.

Multiculturalism is cancer. Cancer of the mind, cancer of the soul, and cancer of the heart. Unfortunately, people today are so misled as to follow the mediocre scions of mediocre thinkers, who as an excuse for their insignificance, have decided to water their cultural tradition, dispersing it in a mixture of incompatible barbarisms.

If there are seven or, lets say, eight takes on a certain issue, for sure, if truth exists, there will be one take which is the most truthful, and one which is the least truthful, with the others spread in-between. Multiculturalism is the belief that there is no such stance that is more, or less truthful: because there is no truth, or either, because such truth is unknowable, or even worse, because society should not be concerned with truth.

Hell is the only destiny when such visions take hold: both before and after death (of course, if there is life after death).

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

An excess of tolerance is just as wrong as the lack of it.



Multiculturalism is cancer. Cancer of the mind, cancer of the soul, and cancer of the heart. Unfortunately, people today are so misled as to follow the mediocre scions of mediocre thinkers, who as an excuse for their insignificance, have decided to water their cultural tradition, dispersing it in a mixture of incompatible barbarisms.

If there are seven or, lets say, eight takes on a certain issue, for sure, if truth exists, there will be one take which is the most truthful, and one which is the least truthful, with the others spread in-between. Multiculturalism is the belief that there is no such stance that is more, or less truthful: because there is no truth, or either, because such truth is unknowable, or even worse, because society should not be concerned with truth.

Hell is the only destiny when such visions take hold: both before and after death (of course, if there is life after death).

+rep

[chriscase]

Why are people here in the forums, and generally, so obsessed with the display of tolerance towards minority and non-mainstream groups?

I personally, and sincerely, ridicule the attempts of certain groups to force political correctness, egalitarian ideals and tolerance over our own lifestyles and minds. Striving to avoid discrimination, they only become the other side of the coin of despotism and repression. I cannot even think (oh God forbid!) about not liking Christians or other religious groups from coming to my house, disturbing me with doctrination or deceiving the masses in their contempt for money and power disguised under benevolent metaphysical intentions. No! I cannot possibly hate anyone under the label of Religious group, Moslems, Christians and so on, merely because then I will be a "hater", and probably have some kind of fascistic leanings, at least in the views of men and women, who, let's confess, base their own idealism on a clique of socialistic, leftist and utopian preachers and some remote knowledge of history. Apparently their conceptions founded on historical knowledge must tell us that the actions of men hundreds of years ago should dictate our experience forever, and that includes the bad labelling of not being all fond of some religious experiences that, let us admit, in our intimate experience are plainly childish, primitive and even idiotic, ergo despicable.

Now, I use Religion merely as a rhetorical example. It could be sexual orientation, moral leanings, private tastes, anything.

I have continuously seen, throughout my forum experience, users being shunned upon with the same old vitriol offenses like "bigot", "hater" and on to "fascist", then finally "neo-nazis" (which is wittingly called Reductio ad Hitlerum); for sure TWC is not the only place I will find them, so much that there is a particular law made in c.1990, the high times of the Usenet, for the inevitable degradation of meaningful discussion into a mud fight with heavy use of "fascist, nazi" & other associations with the Third Reich, Benito Mussolini or Mein Kampf jingoistic, racist and nationalist ideology.

Now, I know that since 1945 humanity's views have taken a shift. The World War was a traumatic experience, and I am sure many here, like me, had family members who fought hard to survive in the brutal conditions back then. But these times are now past, most witnesses to the calamity are dead, and we must go forward. Nobody is a "Fascist" today, if we take the fact that Neo-Nazism is comparable in popularity to Monarchism and assorted ideologies which will never rule again. Should we hold an obsession against Kings, Regal Supremacy and the likes today merely because a couple of centuries ago Kings used their power to execute people? No! In fact, it is even out of fashion today. "Tyrant" was the most popular label yesterday, but today, it is "Neo-Nazi".

Society will always have its dogmas, of course. If in Roman times it was wrong to make wars without the proper amount of liver reading, today it is no different, only that today's dogmas lay in multiculturalism and no less than complete acceptance of every idiotic way of life and philosophy you can think of. Now I ask you a vital question! Every man has principles of his own. Everyone has tastes, and views that differ from each other; every man has a concept of right or wrong. Were I to accept everything as right, wouldn't I contradict my own self and the basis of my own existance as a human being, that is, my principles, my purposes and my views? Yes!

In fact, what is so Orwellian in it is that Multicultural society puts foward the idea of thoughtcrime. I, and everyone else, are to be indoctrinated into the despotism of tolerance; that is, the complete acceptance of diversity as natural and perfect, even when the historical examples like the Balkans, show us the opposite. It is now even a "crime" to think differently! Oh no, I simply can't even think on despising certain Pagan rituals for their inate childishness, their noise and their primitve beliefs. Or God Forbid! I cannot even despise Moslems and Jews for their kosher food and rigid beliefs. No, no, if I do so I will certainly be the catalyst of the Second Holocaust.

Reality, in case of the Balkans, is often difficult to grasp. Easy it is to do like the multicultural crowd and shield ourselves from Reality, oh Reality, and force ourselves to believe it will all go according to our wishes instead of rebellious, selfish and naked reality. Reality, if it were a Goddess, would be the most unpleasant sight; forget about Medusa, Mythological monsters, old women, Satan. It is Reality alone that takes the biggest share of our despise and even sincere hate. Poor Reality, if it could only conform to our beliefs!

Now, to conclude this and avoid writing a whole book of speeches, I will list the example of Chaigidel. I know that Chaigidel is a Theist and has, according to my view, despicable, unbacked and even outright childish belief in God, but as much as hate him for that, I love him for his amazing sincerity. He hates Atheists, and he makes no secret of it; well Chaig, I might hate what you think, but I will respect your right to say it loudly any time. Oh, and no "Neo-Nazism", despite my disrespect for this rule certain times; as you might know, you can't avoid sharing the vices of your own timeframe!

I'm not really sure what you are referring to here. Is there a body of literature you can point me to that represents this "multiculturalism" you are attacking?

As for Chaigidel, I think you have him wrong. I have shown rather conclusively he has no religious faith whatsoever.

[Ummagumma]

Multiculturalism is cancer. Cancer of the mind, cancer of the soul, and cancer of the heart. Unfortunately, people today are so misled as to follow the mediocre scions of mediocre thinkers, who as an excuse for their insignificance, have decided to water their cultural tradition, dispersing it in a mixture of incompatible barbarisms.

Now now, calm down. I've got a nice cup of warm milk for you here. Shall I put some light music on for you?

What is worse? One who is willing and able to take things as they come, to be open to new experience and embrace all the wonders around us, or one that stands himself on a pedestal of supposed intellectual superiority and espouses the 'virtues' of cultural isolationism?
"Thou shalt not dilute my cultural identity with the misguided 'barbarism' of others". It is interesting how you describe other cultures as 'incompatible barbarisms', don't you think (Though the 'insignificant mediocre thinkers' line was just funny..).

[finsternis]

If there are seven or, lets say, eight takes on a certain issue, for sure, if truth exists, there will be one take which is the most truthful, and one which is the least truthful, with the others spread in-between. Multiculturalism is the belief that there is no such stance that is more, or less truthful: because there is no truth, or either, because such truth is unknowable, or even worse, because society should not be concerned with truth.

You are wrong. Multiculturalism does not say "everything is relative", that's relativism. What multiculturalism says is "culture is relative and there is no point in killing or harming someone over something that is not fundamental". And we know that culture is relative and I think we can all agree that is it stupid to harm someone over a collection of subjective ideas. Multiculturalism can actually help with those issues that you were saying since maybe the issue cannot be solved with western philosophy. Maybe it needs eastern or African (don't know where African philosophy falls in. Western or eastern? or some third category) or some combination.

Also, multiculturalism in one step closer to a unified earth. And with a unified earth, so many problems will be solved.

[Ummon]

You are wrong. Multiculturalism does not say "everything is relative", that's relativism. What multiculturalism says is "culture is relative and there is no point in killing or harming someone over something that is not fundamental". And we know that culture is relative and I think we can all agree that is it stupid to harm someone over a collection of subjective ideas. Multiculturalism can actually help with those issues that you were saying since maybe the issue cannot be solved with western philosophy. Maybe it needs eastern or African (don't know where African philosophy falls in. Western or eastern? or some third category) or some combination.

Also, multiculturalism in one step closer to a unified earth. And with a unified earth, so many problems will be solved.

1) culture is not relative: culture is subjective (or local, depending on takes) but its effects are objective, therefore comparable. What a human culture does in a certain situation, can be comparatively better or worse than what another does in the same predicament. Therefore we can pick between them what is the best stance, and what is the worst, and choose the best.

We can even combine the best parts of both to generate more universal solutions. But keeping stuff as it is because we like diversity is like putting animals in a zoo. Artificial.

2) one step closer to nowhere is irrelevant. There will never be a unified Earth, or if there is, there will be no more humanity after that.

[Green]

What a human culture does in a certain situation, can be comparatively better or worse than what another does in the same predicament. Therefore we can pick between them what is the best stance, and what is the worst, and choose the best.

I disagree. Better or worse by whose standards?

[Ummon]

I disagree. Better or worse by whose standards?

The standards of science. More practically, the culture which produces less suffering and human degradation without promoting anarchy and cultural involution and increasing progress, fraternity and self-realization of its members, is objectively better.

There are many ways to try to do so, but some will be always better than others.

The problem with trying to fuse the best of every culture together is that, over the centuries, people get attached to their own cultural memes. Creating a single "Earth culture" is a great ideal, but it'll take a very long time for such a thing to come to pass. Until then, multiculturalism, not political correctness or forced assimilation, is our best option.

Meme is an unfortunate word, for an unfortunate concept, produced by an unfortunate subject.

As for the rest, that is obviously false. There are many universals in human cultures. They are not even well disguised. Infact, when we study human customs, religions and practices, they often look very similar in the end.

When it comes to differences, each man can take the good aspects of the cultures he comes in contact with, and fuse them creatively, proposing better solutions. Creativity is a very important aspect of life.

[Archaalen]

1) culture is not relative: culture is subjective (or local, depending on takes) but its effects are objective, therefore comparable. What a human culture does in a certain situation, can be comparatively better or worse than what another does in the same predicament. Therefore we can pick between them what is the best stance, and what is the worst, and choose the best.

We can even combine the best parts of both to generate more universal solutions. But keeping stuff as it is because we like diversity is like putting animals in a zoo. Artificial.

2) one step closer to nowhere is irrelevant. There will never be a unified Earth, or if there is, there will be no more humanity after that.

The problem with trying to fuse the best of every culture together is that, over the centuries, people get attached to their own cultural memes. Creating a single "Earth culture" is a great ideal, but it'll take a very long time for such a thing to come to pass. Until then, multiculturalism, not political correctness or forced assimilation, is our best option.

[Syron]

And we know that culture is relative

We do? Which experiment was that in?

I call .

Multiculturalism can actually help with those issues that you were saying since maybe the issue cannot be solved with western philosophy. Maybe it needs eastern or African (don't know where African philosophy falls in. Western or eastern? or some third category) or some combination.

Again I call . Give a single example of such a thing, It simply doesn't happen. In fact by claiming culture is relative you completely destroy the idea that somehow multiculturalism could be beneficial in the first place!!!

By saying that one system of culture can add something to other cultures by virtue of specific traits you are clearly stating that cultures can't be relative as no culture should have integral truths!

You are being totally contradictory.

Also, multiculturalism in one step closer to a unified earth. And with a unified earth, so many problems will be solved.

Utopia is an appropriate word in so many ways......