Example: I don’t like and hate fags.
Why is political correctness against my individual choice of discriminating or having my own prejudices?
Because you’re only allowed to make negative sterotypes about white males.
Great come back.
The 14th Amendment is normally used in such cases, but sexuality doesn’t represent a protected class.
intolerance is not tolerated in a multicultural society
You are free to have your own passions. What the law asks of you is that you only act on them in ways that do not prevent others from acting on theirs, while they are bound to the same restrictions.
Hate is a positive passion, different from not liking. “Fags”… - You’re not alone, God hates them too, I read along the way! - inspire you. Perhaps you can begin a band with this theme, I’m sure it will become popular in certain circles, and then you will attract groupies to act on other passions.
One must always find intelligent ways to arrange his passions, so as to suit them to each other.
I wasn’t just talking about prejudices of sexuality as I was also talking about all various forms of discriminations.
Fictional senses of “rights” appeal no interest in me. They’re make believe to me. They’re entirely imaginative.
Well people’s imposing fascist sense of tolerance can kiss my left butt cheek.
There is that fascist sense of tolerance again. It’s one that is imposed and enforced.
You are independent so long as you are tolerant but you have no individual independence to be intolerant. That is a blasphemy to upholded egalitarian metanarrative belief structures in place. Intolerance becomes taboo. It then becomes signified as immoral. Morality also being a fictional script.
More importantly in law when it concerns the power of the state it is the symbolism of the state’s intolerance to all resentments or dissatisfactions of individual intolerance. Individual intolerance is simply not permitted or allowed by the state that is atleast not acted upon openly beyond their thoughts alone.
Individual intolerances or grievances becomes somthing that is controlled within the courts by the state.
If science fiction writers of futuristic fascist totalitarian societies are correct at all in their assessments even cognitivie dissonance of thoughts and the mind when it concerns individual intolerance will become regulated, censored, or controlled eventually.
Only the state’s intolerances of individual intolerance can prevail.
Why tolerance? Because a tolerant general public is a weak, docile, and easily controlled one.
I don’t hate them because of religion. I’m not religious. I hate them because of various expiriences with them as a group.
Well there you go then…
To not repress violent intolerance would defeat the purpose of the state, which is to keep order, regardless whether any of us likes order or not. The only way intolerance can be tolerated is if only certain groups are legally targeted. Hitler tried an approach that might have fitted your passions, he channeled all the resentment in the nation toward a few groups, including gays.
If the government does not choose to place certain groups outside of the law, intolerance of intolerance is a necessary evil in a densely populated world. Much like the state itself.
I know how that is. Me, I hate tourists.
The order of the state is a violent one. Even the upholded tolerance of the state becomes that which is violently enforced and imposed on all individuals especially the rebellious dissenters from their undergrounds.
The state’s enforced notions of tolerance then becomes the intolerance of those who think differently from the created publicly annouced metanarrative.
Even so called tolerant nations need heretics within their own metanarratives in order to have a perceived enemy or threat to guard against with the strengthening of public fanaticism.
Do you honestly believe that the United States or any other modern industrial nation is any way less authoritarian? 
If anything such nations have surpassed that man accomplishing what he could of never dreamed of in the 1940’s.
Today’s technological fascist authoritarian or tototalitarian regimes makes national socialist Germany look like a stroll in Disney Land.
Mind control of human populations today has never been at it’s greatest compared to past history. Today’s existence is the pinnacle of propaganda and mind control that past societies could of only dreamed about.
Although governments still have the future left to master it %99.9 “correctly” when it concerns the notion of total control.
Total control is where individuals have every facet of their lives controlled from cradle to grave where they will be so entirely dumbdowned that they probally won’t even be able to comprehend or perceive that they are being influenced and directed. Give it time.
Necessary? What a bunch of excuses and pointless diatribes that involves.
Better yet, necessary for whom?
See how liberating it is to feel and act upon a intolerance or prejudice openly? That’s the spirit. That’s more like it.
Why today I just called some bus driver a uptight bitch and a dried up cunt. I felt relieved after the insult took place.
I think people need to speak their minds more often.
Whose political correctness? There are many groups out there, and some whole societies, where it is politically correct to hate gay people. There are many competing political correctnesses.
Are you denying the existence of a centralized ideological belief structure maintained by the government?
We can see it maintained in laws, schools, and within businesses. It is enforced and maintained through all aspects of societies.
It is a ideological belief structure of egalitarianism that is enforced by the state.
The ironic thing is that only certain forms of “equality” are enforced where many particular “inequalities” are tolerated within many facets of society.
For instance the “equality” of income is somthing that is never spoke of at the governmental level.
I suppose some “equalities” are better off preserving than others.
No.
EDIT: I reread your post and saw that you are also talking about discrimination. Yes, government interferes with that, to some extent. But prejudice you can have and I think in relation to homosexuality, the majority still has it, many are not concerned about showing it openly or indirectly. And even seeming gay meets this political correctness all the time. For a long time hating gays was the dominant political correctnes everywhere and this was supported by all facets of the system. Perhaps you are too young to remember that, but I notice that most people who use the term political correctness who do remember, never had a problem with that. Often similar lack of concern was present around discrimination around race.
I wouldn’t want to be gay or seen as gay in high school even today, whatever the supposed rules are.
People are free to be prejudiced however. They can hate all they like.
Nearly every damn politician was afraid of being seen as anti-american if they did not fall for the Bush Admin.s BS about Iraq. Now that’s political correctness that reached into everyone’s pockets, killed and traumatized a good number of americans and huge numbers of Iraquis.
It is politically correct to view any non-official conspiracy theory as NOT POSSIBLE. Here the New York Times and Fox News and even Noam Chomsky all agree.
Unfortunately for you if you rent out apartments or employ people you might encounter problems if you discriminate against gays and are open about this. You may. You might not . But you are free to hate them.
Just as people cannot refuse to hire you or rent to you for your political beliefs.
Then it would be safe to be gay and there would be no reason to come out of the closet, etc. But it’s not like that. And people can certainly hate gays and they do in droves. I have friends who are gay and the moment we are seen together by colleagues or neighbors all sorts of negative conclusions - negative in their minds - are drawn about me. Just like it was in high school. I don’t see people afraid to hate. Sure, they may have to rent someone an apartment, but the hate lives on and I think actually it is more popular than the other view.
[/quote]
'Of course not, that would really upset the system.
Hey, Joker, Lucis Trust is back and off his meds. He wanted to know if anything had changed during his hiatus. I directed him to you as a possible opponent. Please accept my apologies if I was in error, but I think you share a lot in common.
Sounds like a interesting fellow. Direct him to me if he wishes a audience.
I don’t find hatred and malice against individuals who as a class have no effect on me to be useful in any way. By all means, hate the government who wants to enforce this mind control on you, and which overdoes it through indoctrination, but if you willfully hate people who do you no wrong, I don’t have much sympathy. Despising them as a class seems an irrational overreaction to this indoctrication, and a misuse of inductive reasoning to generalize them based on your personal experience.
Regardless, it should be your choice and the state shouldn’t own you or your children and whatnot. But let’s not pretend that it shouldn’t be OUR choice to judge your beliefs.
Also, I would disagree with your position that the government wants us to be tolerant so that we will be docile. Rather, I believe they want us to keep up the hate so that we can be used as a weapon when we are needed, and to keep us hating each other so that we don’t see what THEY are doing.
Also - sodomize intolerance. youtube.com/watch?v=mI4XLhY10VA