From here. I do make myself quite a nuisance, what with my chronic inability to shut up. I’ve been trying to word it all politely enough, anyway.
Context: Gene Autry’s cowboy code contains the line that one must not hold “religiously or racially intolerant ideas”. I complimented the code as a whole but questioned that line. After being challenged I wrote this:
From where I’m sitting it’s like the old canard that the only thing you won’t tolerate is intolerance. All right then – you don’t think tolerance should be a guiding principle. And good for you, as it shouldn’t be.
You are being extraordinarily parochial if you think the modern situation of using tolerance as the excuse to preemptively surrender to the jihad or surrender our public institutions to perverts, halfwits, eunuchs, and lunatics, is what tolerance means, or is unusual rather than the norm.
Mr. Autry almost certainly never intended for things to be that way, but when “live and let live” becomes a nation’s guiding philosophy then this is where it leads – get out of the bedroom, and if you’re intolerant, we’re intolerant of you.
“Religiously or racially intolerant ideas” is incredibly vague to the point of being useless.
Ultimately this goes back to my increasingly radical anti-liberal view of the world, such as it is right now. Tolerance is, at best, a useful tool in certain situations. It is an entirely neutral term. Telling kids we should be “tolerant” of something as incredibly important as religion, full stop, without questioning any of the things we’re supposed to be tolerant OF, is very, very harmful.
That IS what tolerance means. If Gene Autry meant something else, he didn’t say it.