Monday, March 14, 2016

Das Dey Culcha--Yane Gots No Rite T'Jujim

However endlessly rejected by zealots it may be, the selective nonsense of victim cultures and universal relativism has been thoroughly processed by a large segment of the reading-comprehension population. Consider the standard run of examples:
Why aren't the Chinese low-IQ in post-railroad California, why aren't the Irish unable to build household wealth after centuries of slavery at the hands of brutal Anglos, why aren't the Germans unable to hold down jobs after surviving discriminatory New York and Pennsylvania, why do female-headed governments start more wars per year of tenure, why is there a WNBA, why is there an NAACP, why is Israel's wall okay, and why do post-racial Euros defiantly remain more vulnerable to melanoma?
One avenue to go consistently overlooked is the stupid one with regards weight. Although a mere variation on the same theme, it's interesting in its own right: the inability of less mentally-abled people to process interactional safety parameters without a larger subset of visual cues from which to choose.

I'm speaking, of course, of fat rejection, or the necessity for members of low-functioning oppressed subgroups to be unable to accurately judge the positive and negative potential of an interaction without relying on accumulated cultural indicia of trustworthiness. This protected group of oppressed people lacks the ability to assess others without drawing upon their shared ethnic heritage of considering fat people slovenly and frightening. There're a few potential cartoons there; e.g., angry hicks marching with banners outside the Rainbow House, demanding that the right to use the term "fatass" is part of their identity and must be sheltered.

Obesity bears some degree of relationship to caloric consumption and other facets of bodily maintenance, as do many other aspects of appearance, to greater and lesser degrees, whether or not we now think we fully understand them. The same rules and exceptions apply, too, to sex and species, subjected to their own minimums, maximums, and means.

The newest take on tolerance, the twenty-first or twenty-second century's grand popular-philosophical conundrum, may have to complete the circuit--to return to the source, so to speak--and address the fundamental contradiction that gave relativism its jumping-off point, namely, the tolerance of intolerance. People who are intelligent enough to run full-fresh analyses of everything they encounter may have to adopt a new kind of socially correct behavior: accepting the need of lower-functioning people to form ethnic bands. The treatment that NAMs now receive, for example, may be extended to less emotionally stable Euros, out of recognition that they are not able to offer a singular assessment of every circumstance, therefore, let them have their stereotypes.

The organic stereotypes will be accurate in most cases, by their nature, which is as unpopular a statement to some people as that they will very rarely be wrong, in which case the stereotyper has committed her or his own failing--which, at a higher level of moral assessment, is a heavier wrong. Nations, neighborhoods, and bullying are all disgusting, self-contradictory, inwardly broken things, but so is misguided defecation, through which every adult has at one point passed, and yet some condemn the slower for needing their less-refined standards. The selfish mistake of the tiny percentage of decent relativists in the last century was expecting the billions of other special needs individuals to have already figured that out. To deny others the ability to discover their own means of approaching lesser conundra, which you have already mastered, is concomitantly a worse sin on your part. The honest crusaders of the relativist era were and are, therefore, the most wrong of all. Not a surprising claim in the end, for it was suggested at the beginning of all this, yet it must be the destination as well: a future where tolerating intolerance is the only socially acceptable form of tolerance.

2 comments:

  1. ...a future where tolerating intolerance is the only socially acceptable form of tolerance.

    Sez hoo?

    From my lofty perch what I see is (1) people who agree with me on everything, they are de facto tolerant; and (2) people who have different values from my own, they are de jure intolerant and ready for extermination.

    You might ask, "what are your values, that they are so well tolerated by so many?" A good question, and as High Pontiff of Progress, I can assure you my values are the same as what the future holds for all of us. Agree with me, and you have a bright future ahead of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It all may have been a futile attempt to reach the western left...?

      Delete