Hats Off To This Author

I was going to write a post exploring why the "tolerant" are so hostile to opposing views; why the mere utterance of opposing views is considered worse than coercing the "tolerant's" own; why many of the basic notions underlying Western civilization for millennia now invite such hostility; and how it is that I easily tolerate and interact with large numbers of modern people who disagree with me, whereas they feel mortally threatened by my mere existence. But then I stumbled on this piece of writing that eloquently and thoroughly explains it. I doubt that the "tolerant" or the ADD contingents will read it, but it is a strong dose of truth.

EDIT:

In the comments beneath his article, the author makes an additional, poignant observation about the process of human degradation:

There is a second step, once all authority is defined as abusive, to define the authority of truth as abusive, so that speaking the truth to someone becomes an act of imposition, and this leads to hatred of truth. Likewise, judging one thing to be more virtuous than another is an inequity, and hence an oppression, so the act of being virtuous or praising virtue becomes a vice.

Amen.

Now Here's An Attractive Offer

It sounds too good to be true, but imagine a contract with the following features. You are required to invest all your free time and assets, but you have no rights and no legitimate expectation of a return. The other party may terminate the contract at will -- even if you haven't breached -- yet still may enforce the contract to keep what you already invested and compel you to continue making payments as if the contract still existed. Such payments are mandatory; you will be considered capable of making them even if you lose your job or the economy sours, and any deficiency or delay will land you in jail. Oh, and the terminating party also may keep all employees or customers generated from the venture. Granted, if you're lucky these things might not happen, but the terminating party still has the power to unleash them on you if you sign. Best of all, if you find fault with this arrangement or question the wisdom of entering it, you will be labeled as crazy or bitter.

Truth indeed is stranger than fiction.

Why Modern America Hates Introverts

Almost two years ago I wrote an article describing the "plight" of the introvert today. This is a phenomenon that continues to fascinate me because it says a great deal about what America has become. The people who ventured across the ocean and into the American wilderness -- severing all ties to the world as they knew it -- were extremely independent, serious, and pious. Such attitudes today are disfavored and associated with dour introverts, not the happy-go-lucky, back-slapping, "well-adjusted" extroverts, who flit about in a society founded by the very sort of people they disdain. Indeed, I often wonder whether a typical mother and father today (to the extent mothers and fathers even still cohabit) would prefer a perfectly healthy introvert for a child, or an extrovert with lobster-claw or Down syndrome.

To me the answer is fairly simple. As I've remarked on numerous prior occasions, this is a consumer-driven "culture" that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. People and things are judged by their outer appearance rather than their inner qualities, since the latter are revealed only through effort that few are willing to expend for anything anymore (besides chasing money or tail). With the explosion of technologies that perpetually engage our senses, people have lost the capacity to use the mind or engage in abstraction. The extrovert is a Vaudeville act, engaging the senses and performing for all the world to see. The introvert is a book, but nobody reads anymore. They see a hard cover and shrug their shoulders, moving along to the nearest sensory diversion. Of course, the extrovert is completely unaware of this and concludes merely that the introvert is a dullard or a snob, not worth wasting time on. 

But it goes deeper than that. Extroverts do not respect introverts because introverts do not go around demanding it. But demanding things is the way of the needy, not the self-sufficient. Of all the people I've ever known or run into, the ones who thumped their chests and demanded respect the loudest were the least worthy of it. If someone truly is excellent, he knows it and does not desperately seek validation from others. True respect is quietly commanded; once again, though, this requires effort and reflection, so it has little purchase in the modern mind.

At bottom is the hatred of introverts, agitated by a creeping suspicion that we indeed are independent, capable, and don't really need you. To the extrovert, not being needed is a death sentence, thus unforgivable. 

Sudden Realization

This whole debate about Phil Robertson, A&E, and now the Minnesota Vikings makes me realize the incredibly perverse nature of modern ethics. Supposedly, it is morally superior to have a "tolerant" mindset that you force others to accept, than to have an "intolerant" mindset that you don't force onto anyone. In other words, merely expressing an "intolerant" belief is somehow worse than using the machinery of government to force others to approve of, interact with, or financially support you. This is why I so often find myself arguing with homosexuals, feminists, and minorities -- not because of who they are, but because of the tyranny they lust for to make everyone agree with them. This is not "tolerance," nor is it how to win admiration or respect. This is how to breed contempt. 

That Sure Didn't Take Long

In my last post I offered a hypothetical about what might happen if a private organization sacked someone for advocating a homosexual lifestyle, arguing that the lefties out there would not defend such an organization's autonomy as they defended A&E's sacking of Phil Robertson for opposing that lifestyle.

Well, now's our chance to find out. A punter for the Minnesota Vikings claims he was sacked for advocating same-sex marriage. If lefties truly are the superior, enlightened, and clear-thinking cohort they claim to be, surely they will rush to the coach's defense and point out that the First Amendment leaves the coach perfectly free to do what he did, since he's not a government actor. But enough sarcasm for the evening.