Intolerance will NOT be tolerated!

Tolerance is a buzzword. I am here to be a buzzkill.

If you utilize the definition, you aren’t playing by the rules. If you utilize the rules, you are playing with the definition.

Think of all the things you currently believe deserve ‘tolerance’. Okay. Got your things? Are you sure? Think hard about it. I want you to be certain.

My guess is your list consists of things you already agree with. Is this tolerance?

Tolerance is ‘allowing’ things you don’t agree with, even though you don’t agree with them! So now: What are the things you believe most deserve ‘tolerance’?

Hate speech? Bullying? Molestation? Rape? Terrorism? My guess is that you want ‘tolerance’ of things you already support. I don’t support this view of tolerance. I am intolerant of ‘tolerance’.

On social media I have stated: Intolerance will NOT be tolerated! I have often received acquiescence from unsuspecting oxymoronic adherents. Being intolerant of intolerance is, quite simply, being intolerant. No big mystery there. However, what about my stance: Intolerance of ‘tolerance’? What then?

Surely this palette is much grayer. I am serious, but about what, exactly?

The english language. I just want things to mean what they mean, and not their morphological 2nd cousins once removed. I understand ‘Google’ is a verb. I can accept that because it is a word which is only decades old, at best. It hasn’t removed anything. But I like words to mean what they were intended to mean. Perhaps I expect too much. Maybe I am just a dying generation – that needs to go away – to make room for those who ‘don’t care much for words’.

Take the word ‘save’, for example. The oldest generation alive are the only ones who are even aware of its meaning: to keep money. Everyone else thinks it means ‘to spend’. SAVE, SAVE, SAVE! What does that mean? It means to spend, doesn’t it? If it doesn’t mean spend, how are you going to ‘save, save, save’, without funds? Actually, there is an answer: You borrow. That’s right. You can borrow money in order to… save, save, save!

If this word actually meant ‘save’, spending money should make you rich.

But there will be no tolerance for english. There is barely tolerance for words in the 21st century, let alone a collection of them utilized for cohesion.

Could this be a Vast-Winged conspiracy? Some sort of over-arching design? Perhaps.

But I’m not playing.

4 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Kekerusey Skxe'itan (a.k.a. Kyuuketsuki)
    Jun 05, 2017 @ 14:56:55

    Shockingly, at least considering our past disagreements, I thought that was a fairly good post. Who are you and what you done with that theist bloke?



    • arthuriandaily
      Jun 06, 2017 @ 19:58:50

      Ha ha, Keke. I am not a theist, but a realist. It doesn’t matter the topic. It has to ‘track’. When it doesn’t track, I am taken aback.


      • Kekerusey Skxe'itan
        Jun 07, 2017 @ 06:29:21

        Clearly, again based on past disagreements, your view of what “tracks” and mine differ.

        As I recall, some of our past arguments have been on the subject of the claimed existence of deity and/or validity of evolution, theist/fundamentalist viewpoints (I would never have been interested in responding had they not been) so I beg to differ on your assertion that you are not a theist. Indeed I found this on your site:

        “The Resurrection is not disputed by evolutionary theory. In fact, it is like sparklers on the 4th of July. Christ rising from the dead pales in comparison to Darwinian science: a virgin cell formed, (parentless,) from nothing.”

        Clearly, that indicates you are theistically inclined but, equally clearly, that you have no fucking idea what the theory of evolution asserts (HINT: it doesn’t cover abiogenesis).

      • arthuriandaily
        Jun 12, 2017 @ 16:56:44

        Keke: You are right. Evolution doesn’t posit abiogenesis. Evolutionists do.

        Evolution has a broader sense than just biological. There is cosmic evolution: The forming of the universe, our planet, the elements, etc.

        Darwin posited the ORIGIN of the species. Obviously this has nothing to do with how species originated. That happened before the origin of the species.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: